[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2209-2219]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT 
        OF EDUCATION RELATING TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND STATE PLANS

  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 91, I call up 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 57) providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Department of Education relating to accountability and 
State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 91, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 57

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Education 
     relating to accountability and State plans under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (published at 
     81 Fed. Reg. 86076 (November 29, 2016)), and such rule shall 
     have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita) and 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 57.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 57.
  Mr. Speaker, I was here also on this floor listening to the debate 
that just finished on H.J. Res. 58, and I have a feeling a lot of the 
same things are going to carry over because we are dealing with the 
same Department. In fact, we are dealing with the prior administration 
generally.
  I was struck by the words that we need to ``give direction to the 
States.'' I think, by definition, those words demonstrate how one side 
here thinks that they know best; that their judgment is somehow better 
than the judgment of governors, of State legislators, of parents, 
teachers, and superintendents themselves when it comes to this issue 
and, in fact, in a larger perspective, when it comes to most issues 
around here. We must give direction to the States--no.
  The fact of the matter is, when the President signed into law, when 
we passed ESSA--the Every Student Succeeds Act--in a lot of ways we 
were saying to the States: You give the direction. You set the way that 
you think is best to educate your best assets. Your best assets, of 
course, being our next generation.
  While we at the Federal level would like to be partners, the fact of 
the matter is it is their property. The tax dollars we are talking 
about are the property of the individuals living in the 50 States and 
other jurisdictions.
  So now here we are using the Congressional Review Act to get rid of 
some regulations that are doing that very thing. We wrote a very 
specific law saying the States are in charge. Here we have a Federal 
agency inserting itself, not just interpreting law, but actually making 
law and taking us in the exact opposite direction that all of us 
intended.
  When I say all of us, I say that in a very bipartisan way, Mr. 
Speaker, because--I am now in my fifth year of being chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 
here in the House. My first 4 years were consumed working with past 
Chairman John Kline, current Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, other members of 
the committee, and all our Democratic counterparts in getting this very 
bipartisan law passed and signed into law.
  Let me go back, Mr. Speaker, and set the table here. You will have to 
remember that under the No Child Left Behind law, which was the law of 
the land for some 13 years--perhaps a well-intentioned law, but 
completely unreasonable in terms of its forced, ridged, one-size-fits-
all accountability system that heavily dictated how we would gauge and 
address school performance--that system represented a top-down approach 
in K-12 education. After 13 years, the data is in and the results are 
in. It simply didn't work.
  So that is why just a little more than a year ago, Congress passed--
again, former President Obama signed into law in a very bipartisan 
way--the Every Student Succeeds Act. With this law, Republicans and 
Democrats worked together to reform our education system to ensure that 
all children are able to receive the education they deserve. It 
represents a fundamentally different approach to education and, in the 
words of one superintendent, empowers local leaders to ``dream and lead 
and transform public education in this country.''
  Unfortunately, almost immediately after the bill became law, the 
Obama administration began its attempt to roll back these bipartisan 
reforms. With the Every Student Succeeds Act, Congress promised to 
reduce the Federal role and restore State and local control over K-12 
education. The law empowers States to develop their own policies to 
hold schools accountable to parents and taxpayers.
  For accountability to work, Mr. Speaker, it must be driven by the 
State and local leaders who are best equipped to directly address the 
issues in their school. Those leaders know better than any Federal 
bureaucrat in the Department of Education what their kids need, even 
down to what their kids'

[[Page 2210]]

names are. I challenge any Federal bureaucrat to know better.
  Unfortunately, the Obama administration's flawed accountability 
regulation would reestablish the Washington-knows-best approach to 
accountability. It is the very same thing I mentioned earlier that we 
just heard regarding H.J. Res. 58. It is an approach that is deeply 
flawed.
  How do I know? What is the best metric to prove the point that that 
Washington-knows-best approach is deeply flawed?
  Look at it. Look at the test scores since the Federal Government has 
been involved in education. You see that they haven't gone up. Yet we 
have spent billions and billions of dollars since the 1970s here at the 
Federal level on local education to see no improvement in the test 
scores.
  Not only does the regulation dictate prescriptive accountability 
requirements, but it violates many of the prohibitions that we put in 
on the Secretary of Education. As we all saw, the top-down approach 
simply didn't work. So that is why we repealed No Child Left Behind and 
passed a bill to transform K-12 education.
  Our students deserve better than the failed policies of the past, and 
that is what the Every Student Succeeds Act does, if implemented as 
Congress intended.
  Now, our intent was not ambiguous, and the law is far from silent. We 
were very specific in the law we wrote. Our specificity dictated that 
the States and localities were back in charge. They were driving the 
bus again. No pun intended.
  The Department has taken some kind of ambiguity, I guess, some kind 
of silence, and has inserted themselves into the lawmaking role. That 
wasn't our intent.
  Our intent was for a new role for the Department, a much smaller role 
for the Department, a less supervisory role for the Department, and a 
less punitive role for the Department, one that would simply ensure 
that our specifically written law, as passed off this floor, passed off 
the Senate floor, and eventually signed into law, was followed as we 
wrote it. So an example of that was we require the States to have plans 
for how they were going to test, that they would test, but nothing more 
prescriptive than that. That is just one example, the testing. There 
were some other parameters.
  Then they were to submit those plans to the Federal Government, and 
the Department of Education was simply to check the box and make sure 
that the plans were done and otherwise comply with the law. The 
Department wasn't to be more prescriptive than that. It wasn't to give 
any more regulation than that. It wasn't to, frankly, give too much 
more direction than that because we recognize that this responsibility 
is primarily that of governors, State legislators, school 
superintendents, parents, and teachers.
  Now, States are already working to implement the law in their school 
districts. I want to be very clear that this resolution in no way does 
anything to stymie those efforts. States should move straight ahead.
  Instead, the resolution gives States the certainty they need to 
continue moving forward, confident that their plans will be reviewed by 
the Department of Education against the requirements of the statute and 
nothing more, with deference given to the judgment of these local 
legislators, local superintendents, et cetera, as the law requires.
  We are also committed to working with the new administration to 
ensure States receive the support they need consistent with the limits 
placed in the statute.
  So, my colleagues, by passing this resolution and blocking 
implementation of the Obama administration's flawed accountability 
rule, we can ensure that the promises we made under the Every Student 
Succeeds Act to restore State and local control in K-12 education are 
kept.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 57 and protect those 
important bipartisan reforms.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution before us, which 
would overturn the accountability regulations in the Every Student 
Succeeds Act, our Nation's most important K-12 education law.
  These accountability guidelines promulgated by the Department are not 
only allowed under the Every Student Succeeds Act, but they are 
essentially required. This legislative body last session put language 
into the Every Student Succeeds Act calling upon the Department and the 
Secretary to clarify this. It is a very different perspective on what 
that legislative intent was.
  There are items in the Every Student Succeeds Act that we agreed--
Democrats and Republicans--the Secretary and the Department would be 
prohibited from promulgating rules regarding. For instance, one of 
those is the promulgation of rules in support of the Common Core 
curriculum.

                              {time}  1545

  Democrats and Republicans agree that the Federal Government should 
not be setting curriculum. That is a matter for the States. We prohibit 
it, specifically, in language in ESSA. We prohibit the Federal 
Government from promulgating rules that require, in any way, shape, or 
form, the adoption of the common core standards at the State level.
  What is not prohibited is rules regarding State accountability 
systems. Quite to the contrary, it is important work. In fact, it is 
the core work under the Every Student Succeeds Act, that very core 
commitment to civil rights that so many Democrats and Republicans feel 
passionate about that is contained through these rules.
  When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act first passed in 1965, 
it was a critical piece of civil rights legislation, and it still is to 
this day. It was written with the intent that every student, no matter 
their race, background, ZIP Code, deserved a great education. And 
today, the Every Student Succeeds Act maintains that spirit.
  If it had some of the prohibition that my colleague on the other side 
of the aisle believes it has, but won't be able to cite specific 
statute that it has, Democrats wouldn't have supported that bill, and 
it wouldn't have passed with nearly every Democrat--if not every 
Democratic vote--in the House and the Senate.
  For months, States have been working diligently to write their own 
State plans to comply with the Every Student Succeeds Act. My home 
State of Colorado has undertaken an extensive process. I got to attend 
one of the stakeholder meetings as part of that process, gathering 
feedback from educators, and parents, and students to write a State 
plan that works for Colorado and meets the requirements of the new law 
and the rules that this CRA would undo.
  This resolution would undo all of that State-level work, all of the 
work that people in Colorado have done, that people in other States 
have done; create massive chaos and uncertainty in public education; 
and destroy the civil rights safeguards that Republicans and Democrats 
worked so diligently to put in place in the Every Student Succeeds Act.
  Not only would this CRA overturn the regulations, but it would 
prevent the Department of Education from looking at accountability 
again. It would tie the hands of the newly confirmed Secretary of 
Education, preventing her from improving or building upon the 
accountability measures that Congress, through the language of ESSA, 
asked the Department to take on.
  This regulation was written after the Department of Education 
received thousands of comments from stakeholders, including parents, 
teachers, school boards, and advocates. Without a rule, the approval of 
the State accountability plans would be entirely at the discretion of 
the new Secretary, Secretary DeVos--the exact type of scenario the 
Republicans wanted to avoid by rewriting ESSA, essentially arguing--and 
many Democrats agreed with the argument--that effectively it was 
arbitrary use of power that then-

[[Page 2211]]

Secretary Duncan wielded, and then-Secretary King, to grant the 
necessary waivers under the No Child Left Behind Act by removing these 
rules that had been promulgated.
  Effectively, we would be back to where we started without criteria 
for approval or denial of State plans; without adequate safeguards for 
civil rights; and without the assurance that we can improve and build 
upon progress.
  How can we trust any Secretary--Duncan, King, DeVos, future 
Secretaries--to know what a good accountability plan and bad 
accountability plan look like? Why should our legislative body delegate 
that level of authority without rules and regulations that we derive 
and allow them to make an arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking 
process that could involve approving bad accountability plans, or 
failing to approve strong accountability plans? That should be a huge 
concern for parents, teachers, students, and the public system.
  You know what? Republicans were right, as were Democrats, when we 
argued that we needed criteria for the approval of accountability 
plans. And the answer is not to give blanket authority to any Secretary 
with regard to approval or denial of their plans, and that is what 
these rules do. And if they need to be improved and built upon, let's 
work with the new Secretary to do that.
  But by not only undoing those rules, but by actually prohibiting the 
Secretary from promulgating additional rules, it will give the 
Department of Education effective arbitrary veto over every State in 
our country and an unprecedented level of federalized control of our 
schools, which might be the real Republican agenda with this bill here 
today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I would only comment that the comments made 
to the rule in this regard--the ones I have seen--were almost all bad. 
They were negative against this rule, except for maybe a few groups.
  I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) who is chairwoman of the full committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Rokita for 
yielding time and for handling this on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 57. For years, the 
Federal Government operated under the flawed idea that Washington knows 
best when it comes to education. Policies put in place in recent 
decades vastly expanded the Federal footprint in the K-12 schools and 
prevented State and local education leaders from delivering the high-
quality education all children deserve.
  Something needed to change. Yet, under the Obama administration, the 
problem only got worse. For years, the last administration used 
regulations, waivers, and pet projects to unilaterally exert its 
control over education. Its heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all policies 
only increased the Federal role in America's classrooms, moving K-12 
education in the wrong direction. That is why Republicans and Democrats 
came together to pass the Every Student Succeeds Act.
  Enacted just over a year ago, the law was built on three important 
principles: empowering parents, reducing the Federal role, and 
restoring local control. It sent a clear message that the American 
people were done with the top-down approach to education.
  Unfortunately, the previous administration didn't get the message. 
The Department of Education continued using rules and regulations to 
push its failed education agenda--the same agenda Congress rejected 
with overwhelming bipartisan support. We are here today to put a stop 
to two of those rules.
  The resolution under consideration, H.J. Res. 57, will roll back a 
regulation implementing accountability provisions in the Every Student 
Succeeds Act. The law empowers States to develop ways to hold schools 
accountable to the students and parents they serve, and ensure taxpayer 
dollars are being spent responsibly. The Department's accountability 
rule, however, does the exact opposite. Not only does it impose 
prescriptive accountability requirements on State education leaders, 
but it also violates specific prohibitions the law places on the 
Secretary of Education's authority.
  We also considered, a few moments ago, H.J. Res. 58, which will block 
implementation of a regulation that significantly expands the Federal 
Government's involvement in teacher preparation.
  Yet, another example of Obama overreach, the teacher preparation rule 
essentially creates a Federal system for evaluating teacher 
performance. It would be virtually impossible to implement and could 
lead to fewer teachers serving low-income students.
  Together, these two resolutions of disapproval will move us towards 
limiting the Federal role in education and protect the local control 
promised with recent education reforms.
  I want to thank Representatives Rokita and Guthrie for their work to 
fight against the flawed policies of the past and for leading the way 
in delivering a more positive, more limited, and more responsible 
Federal role in education.
  I urge my colleagues to support both resolutions.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I rise in strong opposition of H.J. Res. 57. This resolution 
takes aim at the heart of the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA. That 
bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. This resolution would 
strike down regulations that provide necessary clarity to States about 
what it means to ensure that all students are taught to high standards, 
and what it means to provide accurate data on student academic 
performance and resource equity.
  States now lack direction needed to proceed with implementation of 
the bill. Just last week, the Department removed all ESSA technical 
assistance to the States from the public domain, despite numerous and 
repeated requests for technical assistance from State and local 
leaders.
  Mr. Speaker, when Congress came together to pass ESSA, we made a 
promise, the promise of stability and consistency and a full 
replacement of No Child Left Behind. And while we promised new 
flexibilities, those flexibilities came with guardrails to guide the 
decisionmaking, to ensure protections for vulnerable students, and to 
support educators and school leaders. This resolution breaks that 
bipartisan promise.
  Contrary to the wishes of some, ESSA was not a blank check to States 
from the Federal Government. ESSA is a fundamental approach with much 
power restored to the State and local level, but it comes with Federal 
protections for vulnerable students. So we must not waver in our 
commitment to give States the support and guidance they need to move 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, some claim the regulations are unnecessary because 
States can just read the law and implement it. But we all know, based 
on precedence and common sense, that the new landscape of ESSA would 
necessitate regulatory clarity from the executive branch, just as all 
Federal agencies routinely update existing regulations as new 
legislation is passed.
  Providing stakeholders with direction and clarity about how to carry 
out the Federal laws as big as the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act is not new. No Child Left Behind led the Bush administration to 
undergo similar rulemaking, and it was more than 2 years before the 
regulations were fully realized. It also enabled States, in their 
efforts, to move forward with timely submission of their ESSA plans.
  If this resolution of disapproval is enacted, States will have no 
ability to prepare State plans that require Federal approval until 
after the Department reestablishes requirements and criteria, causing 
an unwelcome and unnecessary delay for States eager to move forward, 
leaving ESSA unregulated before States to just wait until the new 
regulations are passed, and also undo months of work that is currently 
underway.

[[Page 2212]]

  In effect, the lack of clarity on how to effectively utilize the new 
flexibilities, while meeting statutory requirements, may lead many 
States to revert to--they have to revert to something--maybe the No 
Child Left Behind narrow policies and systems, the very policies that 
the ESSA eliminated.
  Mr. Speaker, where the law's requirements are ambiguous, agency 
interpretation is necessary to set a Federal floor. Without that floor, 
compliance with the Federal law becomes subjective, with different 
standards being applied from State to State. This kind of subjectivity 
was the same problem we had with No Child Left Behind when States 
relied on guidance without regulation.
  Under that scheme, the Department could not be held accountable for 
treating one State different from another, and that is what we are 
correcting through the enactment and regulation of ESSA's core 
requirements. Those requirements must be applied fairly across all 
States. That is the whole point of a Federal law.
  The Department conducted hundreds of meetings, held public forums and 
listening sessions, and read and responded to thousands of comments to 
produce a consensus-driven rule. The Department made significant 
revisions before finalization, and they were met with praise from 
teachers, State education chiefs, local administrators, parents, and 
civil rights communities.
  Regardless of whether you think the rule is perfect or flawed, the 
substance of the rule is a reasonable interpretation that provides 
clarity for States to enable their compliance with statutory 
requirements. Now, President Trump has administrative tools at his 
disposal to revise or completely rewrite this regulation. However, it 
is clear, based on history of implementation of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act that regulatory clarity is necessary.
  Using the CRA to block the rule is unnecessary and shortsighted. It 
hurts students and schools. It undermines a bipartisan intent of 
Congress and leaves States in a lurch by causing confusion and delays 
for the submission of their State plans. It also undermines equity 
protections for vulnerable students that the law was intended to serve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. This resolution threatens the success of the 
law we fought so hard to pass, so I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I finally realized what is happening here. 
What the other side considers ambiguous is really flexibility. I think 
that is the difference here. But, let's be clear. What we intended 
through ESSA was flexibility for the States. Nowhere in the law are we 
ambiguous about what we intended.
  I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Ferguson), who, in the month that he has been here, has already 
injected a lot of energy to the committee and is doing a great job for 
his constituents.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 57. 
Voting in support of this resolution ensures that the Federal 
Government will stay out of our children's classrooms and give the 
power back to the local authorities to make good, solid education 
decisions.
  Throughout my congressional campaign, the people of the Third 
District of Georgia of all backgrounds and income continued to express 
their frustration that the Federal Government continued to get involved 
in policies that should be the domain of local and State governments.
  I have spoken with education leaders in the Third District of 
Georgia, in places like Troup County and Fayette County, and they were 
very pleased with the bipartisan effort of the Every Student Succeeds 
Act passed last Congress. They told me that they felt hopeful with the 
new flexibility written into the law granting the power to the States 
and the local leaders to decide what accountability measures work best 
for their students. However, as time went on, they expressed great 
concern as the Department of Education began writing this new 
accountability regulation.
  The accountability measures that will work for my home State of 
Georgia and my home district won't always work best for students 
elsewhere. Trying to educate students in the Third District of Georgia 
the exact same way you do students in Detroit, Michigan, or Spokane, 
Washington, or Prescott, Arizona, just simply will not work.
  Every child deserves access to quality education, but imposing a 
nationwide standard will only hamper this goal with burdensome 
regulations, and we have seen that failed policy under the No Child 
Left Behind Act. This resolution pulls back the Federal overreach, 
ensuring that the decisions will remain at the local level, and that is 
why I support H.J. Res. 57 today.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57.
  This resolution is an extreme measure that will disrupt and delay the 
implementation of the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act, an 
important law that replaces the failed policies of No Child Left Behind 
by carefully balancing the need for more local control in education 
with strong Federal civil rights protections for students.
  Today, sadly, the promise of the Every Student Succeeds Act is in 
jeopardy. This resolution appears to be part of a larger effort to 
dismantle the oversight and enforcement responsibilities of the 
Department of Education which would harm all students.
  If my Republican friends are serious about successfully implementing 
the law we all worked so hard to pass, they would not be demolishing a 
key set of regulations, and certainly not while States are currently 
finalizing their plans to implement the new accountability systems and 
public reporting requirements outlined in the regulations.
  These regulations give States considerable flexibility and guidance. 
For example, they provide additional time to identify schools for 
comprehensive and targeted support. They ensure that parents are 
notified if their school is identified for additional support and 
explain how parents can get involved in their school's improvement 
efforts, and they give States flexibility to use multiple indicators in 
evaluating schools. These regulations are reasonable clarifications 
that reinforce the intent of the law.
  Of course, my colleagues might disagree with some elements of the 
regulations, but this is the wrong way to change them. If my colleagues 
were serious about changing the regulations, then they would involve 
stakeholders and have a collaborative and transparent process to amend 
the rules through the public notice and comment process.
  Unfortunately, without critical rules for implementing the Every 
Student Succeeds Act and the ability to write similar rules in the 
future, I expect we will see two things happen, both of which are 
detrimental:
  Some States will take an anything-goes approach, which could hurt our 
15 million public school students and, historically, is particularly 
damaging to African-American students, Hispanic students, Native 
American students, students with disabilities, and English-language 
learners. Remember the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
was about equity.
  Other States, without clear rules for compliance, will simply 
continue existing policies--many of which are a legacy of the No Child 
Left Behind era--and miss out on the important flexibility and positive 
changes in the new law.
  Using the Congressional Review Act to dismantle important regulations 
for the Every Student Succeeds Act will create a great deal of 
uncertainty and threaten the implementation of the law. Certainty is 
what our school districts need, and it risks critical equity 
protections for disadvantaged students.
  The resolution before us is an extreme measure. It is entirely 
avoidable. The administration can revise

[[Page 2213]]

these regulations, but instead, the supporters of this resolution are 
choosing to gut this important law by making implementation essentially 
unfeasible and uncertain.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand with our students 
across this country and vote ``no'' on this resolution, and then let's 
work together to amend the regulations.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentlewoman: ESSA was a 
landmark bipartisan achievement. Unfortunately, the Obama 
administration's partisan implementation of it is what brings us here 
today. Instead of choosing to take every opportunity to work with us, 
the Obama administration is choosing to do through the regulatory 
process what it couldn't achieve legislatively.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Costello), who is doing a great job for his State.
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, last Congress, Members on 
both sides of the aisle came together to restore education 
decisionmaking authority to where it should be--at the State and local 
level--devolving it from overreach by the Federal Government through 
the Every Student Succeeds Act. It was a bipartisan accomplishment that 
I speak very proudly of in my congressional district, as I know many 
Members do in their congressional districts.
  However, certain regulations were issued by the Department of 
Education last year that threaten regulatory overreach, including 
problematic provisions requiring States to issue uniform standards to 
determine a teacher's level of effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Put 
quite simply, the rule, as it was issued late in November, is not 
consistent with the law that we passed that we were all so proud of. In 
fact, it is necessary to use the CRA to override this rule in order to 
maintain the integrity of the ESSA, which we are all very proud of 
passing, to restore local control, and that goes from student testing 
to curriculum, to teacher evaluation. What we have here, as written, 
are regulations which threaten an overemphasis on students' 
standardized testing scores when evaluating the quality of a teacher.
  H.J. Res. 57 would override regulations because they are not 
consistent with the law that we just passed. H.J. Res. 57 would 
preserve the bipartisan accomplishments achieved in the ESSA by 
allowing States to continue tailoring the ESSA to meet local needs 
without overreach and without mandates from the Federal Government. Put 
simply, what we are seeking to do here is to prevent the Federal 
Government from once again nudging its nose into local and State 
control over teacher evaluations, which was one of the main objectives 
of the ESSA in the first instance.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Rokita for his leadership.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Espaillat), who is a new member of the Education and the 
Workforce Committee and is doing an excellent job so far.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in strong opposition 
to H.J. Res. 57. Not only is the rollback of these substantive measures 
incredibly detrimental, but the process by which my Republican 
colleagues are facilitating their actions is, quite simply, wrong. This 
regulation is a product of months of work to come to a consensus on 
what is best for all of our students.
  Mr. Speaker, the Every Student Succeeds Act received strong 
bipartisan support, and it received bicameral support when it passed 
when 359 Members of the House and 85 Senators voted in favor of this 
legislation. In fact, Senator Lamar Alexander, who serves as chairman 
of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said 
back then that this bill was truly a Christmas miracle for American 
children. However, just weeks into this administration, Republicans, 
for purely political reasons and for political purposes, are actively 
working to strip States and districts of the stability and clarity they 
need to implement this law.
  Approximately 50 million children attend public schools in the United 
States. About 1.1 million of those students are in New York City Public 
Schools. I think everyone agrees that we should be doing all we can do 
to help and prepare our students, but this resolution does the exact 
opposite. This regulation provides important guidance to ensure the 
students are college and career ready. It helps schools identify 
subgroups of students in need of additional academic support and help.
  Dismantling this regulation will disrupt ways in which information 
used to measure school performance and resource equity is reported, 
ultimately resulting in our parents, teachers, and policymakers not 
being equipped with the necessary data to make important decisions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of New York). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Further, rolling back this regulation directly targets 
inner-city public schools and shows, at best, indifference to our 
Nation's most vulnerable students. It will leave students--
specifically, low-income minority students and English-language 
learners--without the protections and support intended by Congress.
  I, of all people, understand this important measure to look out for 
students with special English-language needs, coming from a low-income 
immigrant family, and I implore my Republican colleagues to reconsider 
this troublesome action.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), who is a new member of the Education 
and the Workforce Committee.
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 
57 today for two reasons. I believe that the majority's repeated use of 
the Congressional Review Act this week and last week is unnecessary, 
constraining, and, in this case, adds cost. The Congressional Review 
Act has only been used successfully in 2000 one time, and already this 
month the House is considering its eighth joint resolution of 
disapproval.
  I believe in our role of oversight of the executive branch, but using 
the blunt tool of the CRA to block regulatory action in an effort to 
support and improve public education is an abuse of the CRA. The newly 
confirmed Secretary of Education can already amend targeted rules like 
the one this resolution is addressing without fully repealing the 
guidance and preventing similar rules in the future.
  The Every Student Succeeds Act was a major bipartisan accomplishment, 
and I am particularly concerned about the uncertainty for the States 
and local stakeholders caused by repealing these accountability 
standards in the underlying rule.
  In Delaware, just as in States across the country, local stakeholder 
groups and State departments of education have been working together to 
provide thorough feedback and guidance on these accountability rules 
that the majority wants to repeal.
  I have heard from my State board of education that repealing these 
regulations would cause States to delay the development of their plans, 
potentially costing them both time and money to gather feedback on a 
significantly different set of guidelines for the plan, and, most 
importantly, further delaying the implementation of changes to the 
education system that our students need and deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, my question to my colleagues would be: Why get rid of 
the whole rule when it comes from a bill that ultimately happened in 
such a bipartisan way? Why prevent accountability and guidance for 
States?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. I will oppose H.J. Res. 57, Mr. Speaker, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 57.

[[Page 2214]]



                              {time}  1615

  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The effect of this action will not halt State implementation efforts. 
Let me say that again. The effect of this action will not halt State 
implementation efforts.
  Our intent is to require clarity and consistency so implementation 
can, in fact, continue. States are continuing to develop State plans 
that comply with the law, as you have already seen being done across 
the country. The States and school districts are in the driver's seat 
here, Mr. Speaker, and they should continue moving forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, (Ms. Judy Chu), the chair of the Congressional Asian 
Pacific American Caucus.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.J. Res. 57. This reckless measure rolls back the 
progress made by the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, by making it 
easier for schools to ignore vulnerable or underachieving students.
  Before ESSA, American schools operated under the one-size-fits-all 
model of No Child Left Behind. What we got was a lopsided understanding 
of our education system--one that focused on meeting unforgiving 
benchmarks and turned a blind eye to students who needed more support.
  Then, after years of careful, bipartisan work, we finally succeeded 
in passing ESSA last Congress. Thanks to the work of the Congressional 
Tri-Caucus, this bill made needed changes to ensure that vulnerable 
students, including English language learners and students of color, 
didn't slip through the cracks. In fact, the accountability provisions 
within ESSA were specifically designed to protect the rights of every 
student and ensure that struggling schools have the resources and 
support they need to succeed.
  Now, by rescinding the rule which implements the core of this law, 
Republicans are undoing all of that work in the name of relentless 
deregulation. Worse, they are, once again, using the little-known 
Congressional Review Act, which means no future administration can 
issue a rule like this ever again.
  Most Americans are unfamiliar with the Congressional Review Act 
because, before this Congress, it has only been used once before. Now 
Republicans are using it almost daily to weaken our government and 
support fewer people.
  With today's vote, Republicans are taking an ax to equity provisions 
of ESSA and prioritizing politics over students. Rather than pass this 
extreme measure, we should focus on a way to enforce ESSA and ensure 
that every student, no matter their race, income level, or language 
ability, has access to a quality education.
  I urge my colleagues to prioritize our Nation's students and vote 
``no'' on H.J. Res. 57.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the 
gentlewoman that I agree that we have to be careful to make sure 
underserved children are not vulnerable, which is what we did in the 
underlying law in a bipartisan manner when we passed it and when the 
President signed the law.
  I reject the premise that State and local leaders, however, cannot be 
trusted to deliver an excellent education to all of their students. 
More importantly, that premise was rejected by Congresses in ESSA 
itself.
  Beyond that, the criticism just levied is simply not true. The 
Department of Education has the right and, indeed, the obligation to 
enforce the law. That has never been in dispute.
  There are clear requirements in this statute for States to develop 
ways to hold their schools accountable and to report information about 
school performance to parents and their communities. That duty 
continues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the legal implications and the 
chaos that this resolution would create if it were passed. I want to 
share with you a brief story from a parent who has two sons with 
special needs and who depends on strong accountability for her son's 
success.
  What parents across this country who have kids in public schools want 
to see is a system that works for them. They are not so caught up in 
which rule is being passed by who and who is doing what. They want to 
make sure the learning needs of their child are met.
  Frankly, a strong accountability system and a reliable accountability 
system with parameters that are clear rather than a chaotic and 
unpredictable one goes a long way to reassuring parents across this 
country that the needs of their child are being met.
  Here is a brief story from a parent with two sons with special needs:

       My son Jacob is a freshman in high school. Today, he's a 
     straight A student well on his way to a great future. But it 
     wasn't always that way. He spent his early elementary school 
     years lacking the supports he needed to be successful in the 
     classroom.
       At the beginning of fourth grade, he was in a self-
     contained classroom, which supported his behavioral needs, 
     but not his academic needs. We were given the choice to ``opt 
     out'' of grade-level testing, but refused. It was the results 
     of those tests that gave us the data we needed to see where 
     he needed support and to see where he could excel 
     academically. We all saw he was working at or above grade-
     level in many areas. It kept us accountable to planning his 
     successful future.
       By the end of fourth grade, he was partially included in a 
     general education classroom. By middle school, he was fully 
     included in the general education classroom with minimal 
     supports in place. Without accountability standards in place 
     for students like Jacob, none of us--his parents, his 
     teachers, and even Jacob himself--would have been able to 
     track his upward trajectory.

  I hear stories like this from so many of my constituents, Mr. 
Speaker: kids with learning disabilities, kids who attend schools that 
have pervasive achievement gaps between higher- and lower-income 
students and students of color and White students.
  Frankly, the accountability system that we have had and the 
improvements that we built into it through the Every Student Succeeds 
Act and this rulemaking process are the prime civil rights safeguards 
that families across the country have so that they can, with 
confidence, know that the public schools are required to meet the 
learning needs of their child and that somebody is watching that, who 
will watch the watchers, and that their only recourse isn't just 
expensive litigation, which the repeal of this rule would lead to more 
of, but, frankly, is where the money is coming from and making sure 
that there is a degree of controls in place that the learning of the 
child is being met.
  Stories like Jacob's are the reason why so many organizations have 
voiced their opposition to H.J. Res. 57.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of organizations that 
have announced opposition.

       The following organizations have all voiced their 
     opposition to House Joint Resolution 57:
       Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC); 
     Congressional Black Caucus (CBC); Congressional Hispanic 
     Caucus (CHC); Alliance for Excellent Education; Association 
     of University Centers on Disabilities; Center for American 
     Progress; Children's Defense Fund; Consortium for Citizens 
     with Disabilities; Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; 
     Democrats for Education Reform; Disability Rights Education & 
     Defense Fund.
       Easterseals; The Education Trust; Judge David L. Bazelon 
     Center for Mental Health Law; League of United Latin American 
     Citizens; Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund 
     (MALDEF); NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
     Inc.; National Association of Councils on Developmental 
     Disabilities; National Center for Learning Disabilities; 
     National Council of La Raza; National Disability Rights 
     Network; National Down Syndrome Congress; National Indian 
     Education Association.
       National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; New 
     Leaders; PolicyLink; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center 
     (SEARAC); Stand for Children; Teach For America; Teach Plus; 
     The New Teacher Project (TNTP); The Leadership Conference on 
     Civil and Human Rights; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; United 
     Negro College Fund (UNCF).
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                                 February 6, 2017.
       To the Members of the United States Congress: The Chamber 
     opposes H.J. Res. 57,

[[Page 2215]]

     which would block regulations implementing accountability 
     provisions in the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act 
     (ESSA).
       The Chamber believes these regulations, although not 
     perfect, have provided states, districts, and schools the 
     guidance necessary to ensure an orderly transition from the 
     prior No Child Left Behind Act to the new, and far more 
     flexible, accountability provisions under ESSA.
       The Chamber is concerned that repealing the regulations 
     could delay implementation of this critical new law. Over the 
     past year, states have been developing implementation plans 
     with input from thousands of stakeholders. Many states are in 
     the final stages of developing these plans and preparing them 
     for submission to the Department of Education. Repealing will 
     create unnecessary confusion and uncertainty.
       The Chamber urges you to vote against H.J. Res. 57.
           Sincerely,
     Jack Howard.
                                  ____


  Congressional Tri-Caucus Chairs Oppose Efforts To Undermine Public 
                               Education

                 [For Immediate Release--Feb. 7, 2017]

       Washington, DC.--Today, the Chairs of the Congressional 
     Tri-Caucus--composed of the Congressional Asian Pacific 
     American Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the 
     Congressional Hispanic Caucus--released the following joint 
     statement in opposition to H.J. Res. 57, which would 
     undermine the Department of Education's authority to 
     implement and enforce key provisions of the Every Student 
     Succeeds Act (ESSA):
       ``H.J. Res. 57, the joint resolution to undermine 
     implementation of the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act 
     (ESSA), is another step in the Republican attack on public 
     education and enforcement authority of the Department of 
     Education. First, President Trump nominates a champion of 
     privatization who is unfamiliar and unwilling to enforce key 
     civil rights protections for students. Now, Congressional 
     Republicans are ripping apart regulation to guide 
     implementation of the most important equity provisions of our 
     nation's new K-12 law.
       ``As leaders of the Congressional Asian Pacific American, 
     Black, and Hispanic Caucuses we fought to couple ESSA's 
     unprecedented state and local flexibility over school 
     accountability and improvement with strong federal 
     protections for our most vulnerable students. Without the 
     stability and clarity provided through regulation, plan 
     development stops, systems halt, and students and teachers 
     lose. While this regulation reflects the consensus of the 
     education and civil rights community, it is within the 
     purview of the new Republican administration to reexamine and 
     amend it as they see fit. However, rather than take this 
     responsible approach to implementing the new law, Republicans 
     have chosen to put politics before students.
       ``H.J. Res. 57 would leave key provisions of the law 
     completely unregulated indefinitely, leaving state systems 
     that serve our nation's more than 50 million public school 
     students in limbo and important civil rights obligations 
     unfulfilled. Faithful implementation of ESSA must honor both 
     the bipartisan intent of Congress and the longstanding civil 
     rights legacy of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
     This reckless measure flies in the face of both. For these 
     reasons, we firmly oppose H.J. Res. 57.''
                                  ____

                                           Consortium for Citizens


                                            With Disabilities,

                                                 February 6, 2017.
       Dear Representative: The co-chairs of the Consortium for 
     Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Education Task Force, on 
     behalf of the CCD Education Taskforce, write in opposition of 
     H.J. Res. 57 to rescind the accountability regulations under 
     the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
       The CCD Education Task Force advocates for Federal public 
     policy that ensures the self-determination, independence, 
     empowerment, integration, and inclusion of children and 
     adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The CCD 
     Task Force sees these principles as critical elements in a 
     society that recognizes and respects the dignity and worth of 
     all its members.
       The CCD Ed Task Force believes that the ESSA accountability 
     regulations are critical for meaningful implementation of 
     ESSA. The regulations clarify the statutory language in ESSA, 
     build upon ESSA's flexibility for school improvement and 
     provide a clarified role for families, educators and 
     stakeholders to share in the implementation process. Perhaps, 
     most importantly, the final regulations help assure that 
     States meaningfully develop accountability plans that will 
     create statewide systems to identify schools and districts 
     which need to target funds to intervene and support students 
     not meeting state-determined standards. We view this as 
     critical to helping shine a needed light on the education gap 
     for groups of students, including students with disabilities 
     so they can make important gains and achieve the same 
     education outcomes as their peers.
       The passage of ESSA was a successful bi-partisan effort to 
     improve education for all students built upon the frame of 
     accountability. To rescind these regulations would not only 
     be a disservice to the spirit of ESSA and diminish the 
     efficacy of the law, but would also serve to undermine the 
     equity of educational opportunity for all students, including 
     students with disabilities.
       Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 
     contact any of the co-chairs listed below.
           Sincerely,
     Lindsay E. Jones,
       National Center for Learning Disabilities.
     Laura Kaloi,
       Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates.
     Amanda Lowe,
       National Disability Rights Network.
     Kim Musheno,
       Association of University Centers on Disability.
     Cindy Smith,
       National Assoc. of Councils on Developmental Disabilities.
                                  ____

                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                                                 February 6, 2017.
     Keep ESSA Implementation Moving Forward--Oppose H.J. Res. 57.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference 
     on Civil and Human Rights and the 29 undersigned 
     organizations, we urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 57 and to 
     support continued implementation of the bipartisan Every 
     Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). In order for the latest 
     reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 to fulfill its purpose as a civil rights law and for 
     implementation to comply with the requirements Congress set 
     forth, federal oversight is critical. The underlying 
     accountability and state plan regulation will help states, 
     districts, and schools to faithfully implement the law and 
     meet their legal obligations to historically marginalized 
     groups of students including students of color, students with 
     disabilities, and students who are English learners, 
     immigrants, girls, Native American, LGBTQ or low-income. 
     Congress should reject the effort to overturn these 
     regulations under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and 
     should preserve critical protections for marginalized 
     students.
       Over the course of legislative debate in 2015, Congress 
     reached several compromises which enshrined both meaningful 
     guardrails and state flexibility into the new law. It was 
     these compromises--the allowance of flexibility while still 
     maintaining core principles of fiscal responsibility and 
     protections for marginalized students--which led to the 
     passage of the ESSA. At the core is an offer to states--
     federal funding in exchange for compliance with requirements 
     regarding accountability, protections for students, and 
     fiscal responsibility. States must not be permitted to take 
     federal funds while flouting the law's mandates. The 
     accountability and state plan regulation provides 
     clarification and timelines which will support the vital role 
     of the U.S. Department of Education in ensuring that states 
     hold up their end of that deal.
       The process of soliciting public feedback on potential ESSA 
     regulations began long before a draft rule was even 
     published. On December 22, 2015 the Department of Education 
     issued a request for information and noticed two public 
     meetings, ``soliciting advice and recommendations from 
     interested parties prior to publishing proposed 
     regulations.'' Then, when draft rules were issued more than 
     five months later, the agency received over 21,000 public 
     comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. 
     After considering the voluminous feedback, the Department of 
     Education issued a final rule on November 29, 2016. This 
     robust and transparent engagement process was appropriate and 
     needed--questions regarding the responsible use of federal 
     funds and the need to ensure that every student succeeds 
     generate considerable interest. Support for the CRA and 
     discarding this important regulation diminishes the important 
     time and thought dedicated to this process, and the voices of 
     parents, students, advocates, educators and others who have 
     sought to be heard.
       ESSA can and should, ``provide all children significant 
     opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality 
     education, and to close educational achievement gaps.'' These 
     lofty objectives, however, require vigilance and oversight by 
     the Department of Education and support from Members of 
     Congress. We urge you to oppose this resolution and to allow 
     for the continued implementation of the law. Should you have 
     any questions, please reach out to Liz King, Leadership 
     Conference Director of Education Policy.
           Sincerely,
         The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; 
           Alliance for Excellent Education; Association of 
           University Centers on Disabilities; Children's Defense 
           Fund; Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; 
           Democrats for

[[Page 2216]]

           Education Reform; Disability Rights Education & Defense 
           Fund; Easterseals; The Education Trust; Judge David L. 
           Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
         League of United Latin American Citizens; MALDEF; NAACP; 
           NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; 
           National Association of Councils on Developmental 
           Disabilities; National Center for Learning 
           Disabilities; National Council of La Raza; National 
           Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome 
           Congress; National Indian Education Association; 
           National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; New 
           Leaders; PolicyLink; Southeast Asia Resource Action 
           Center (SEARAC); Stand for Children; Teach For America; 
           Teach Plus; TNTP; UNCF.
                                  ____

         The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., 
           Democrats for Education Reform, The Education Trust, 
           The Leadership Conference, National Center for Learning 
           Disabilities, National Council of La Raza, U.S. Chamber 
           of Commerce,
                                                 February 6, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: Over the past two 
     years, our organizations have worked together--across lines 
     that often divide us on matters of public policy--to secure 
     provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that we 
     all think are vitally important to our nation's future, and 
     ensure those provisions are implemented well in the states. 
     Our common goals include:
       State-adopted standards aligned with the demands of 
     postsecondary education and the workforce;
       Annual statewide assessment of all students in grades 3-8 
     and once again in high school, with a strictly limited 
     exception for students with the most significant cognitive 
     disabilities;
       Transparent, accessible reporting of data--disaggregated by 
     race, income, disability status, and English proficiency--at 
     the state, district, and school levels, so educators, 
     parents, and students themselves have objective information 
     on where they are on their journey to college and career 
     readiness; and
       Statewide accountability systems that include achievement 
     and graduation-rate goals for all groups of students, rate 
     schools in large part on the academic performance of all 
     groups of students, and require action when any group of 
     students consistently underperforms.
       The overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation reflects these 
     principles. It grants states broad discretion to design their 
     systems while holding them responsible for working within-
     federal guardrails to design systems that ensure genuine 
     equity and excellence for all students.
       Since ESSA's passage, we have collectively been working in 
     states across the country to equip diverse partners to push 
     for and support the development of state systems focused on 
     equity and improvement.
       One important piece of this process is the adoption of 
     regulations, which provide clarity and certainty on both the 
     key principles of the statute and the processes for 
     implementation.
       The U.S. Department of Education finalized those 
     regulations in November. But just as states and state 
     advocates are putting pen to paper on their state plans, you 
     are considering a resolution disapproving of the regulations. 
     This action will cause unnecessary confusion, disrupting the 
     work in states and wasting time that we cannot afford to 
     waste.
       Just as we believe the Every Student Succeeds Act 
     incorporates our principles, we believe the regulations do as 
     well. And they provide states with the clarity they need to 
     move forward. We do not support H.J. Res. 57 and we ask you 
     to vote no.

  Mr. POLIS. The opposing organizations include Alliance for Excellent 
Education; Association of University Centers on Disabilities; 
Children's Defense Fund; Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities; 
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Democrats for Education 
Reform; Easterseals; The Education Trust, League of United Latin 
American Citizens; Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; 
NAACP; National Center for Learning Disabilities; National Council of 
La Raza; National Down Syndrome Congress; National Urban League; 
National Women's Law Center; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; 
Stand for Children; Teach For America; United Negro College Fund. And 
even, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has weighed in on this 
bill to oppose these efforts to strip away the accountability system 
from our public education.
  I also want to point out that I was opposed to the earlier resolution 
on the floor today, which would unravel the Department of Education's 
regulation on teacher preparation.
  The intent of the teacher preparation program, as was argued here, 
was to provide more transparency and accountability around the quality 
of teacher preparation programs.
  This Republican quest to abolish accountability for our public 
schools is exactly the opposite of what I hear from parents and 
families in my district who want to make sure that we have more 
transparency and more accountability, not less.
  While I think we all can agree that a great education starts with a 
great teacher, we ought to be able to make sure that teacher 
preparation programs are charged with adequately preparing teachers and 
that we have some objective criteria for checking whether teacher 
preparation programs are doing a good job or doing a poor job.
  The regulation also requires that TEACH Grant recipients attend high-
performing teacher preparation programs. It is not a matter of picking 
winners or losers. It is simply a solution towards making sure our 
limited taxpayer dollars for professional development and teacher 
training are used effectively. If money is going to be invested in 
teachers at high-needs schools, we want to make sure that teachers are 
attending high-quality programs.
  Now we have had a robust debate about the implications of 
accountability and the real impact it has for States, districts, and 
students; but I want people to focus on the story of parents and 
families in their district who benefited from the accountability system 
that previously existed and is improved upon through the Every Student 
Succeeds Act.
  It walks away from accountability--that is what this CRA does. If 
this CRA passes, it doesn't just get rid of a particular set of rules 
around accountability. Everybody might have things they want to change. 
There is a process for changing those and a new Secretary in place who 
can certainly begin that process. No, it wouldn't do that.
  It would abolish the entire rules and effectively prevent the 
Secretary from promulgating new rules around accountability, leaving it 
completely unknown to the States and the school districts what criteria 
the Federal Government was looking for in improving State-based 
accountability programs.
  Parents like Jacob's wouldn't know if the Federal Government would be 
there to make sure that school districts had a plan to meet the 
learning needs of every child.
  The reason it is opposed so vociferously by civil rights 
organizations is none of us would know whether the State accountability 
plan had a plan to close the achievement gap to make sure that schools 
can cater to the needs of all kids, regardless of their race or income.
  That is what is lacking by passage of this CRA. It would effectively 
handcuff the Secretary of Education, prevent her from implementing the 
overwhelming will of this body, Democratic and Republican, to maintain 
the civil rights and accountability safeguards of No Child Left Behind; 
by moving away from the one-size-fits-all accountability formula 
towards increased State flexibility, so long as the basic goal of 
meeting the learning needs of all students were met by State level 
plans.
  That is at the heart of why we need accountability in the Every 
Student Succeeds Act. This is why we need guidance from the Department 
of Education through rules and regulations.
  The resolution before us today would completely undermine the civil 
rights provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act and would prevent 
the Department of Education from even considering new rules and 
regulations to protect the civil rights of Americans across our 
country.
  Those with learning disabilities and those without, parents across 
the country have banded together to oppose this Congressional Review 
Act.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to undermine our public

[[Page 2217]]

schools and undermine accountability. I oppose this resolution, and I 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman talks about accountability. I want to reassure all the 
Members here that will be voting on this joint resolution that we are 
not throwing accountability out the window.
  What we decided last year when we passed the Every Student Succeeds 
Act is that accountability was a good thing. But the best leaders and 
the best persons to determine what that accountability should be and 
what that accountability should look like are found in our States and 
are found in our local jurisdictions. They know our best assets the 
best--our best assets being our children. They know what they need.
  So we are not throwing accountability out the window. We are saying 
accountability is to be measured at the State level by the States, by 
the local jurisdictions, and they are to simply report to the 
Department of Education what their accountability plan is in a 
transparent way so that, again, parents, teachers, and taxpayers can 
decide if that State is doing a good job, so that people like the 
NAACP--if they are and should be, as we all should be, worried about 
achievement gaps--could affect how to close those achievement gaps in 
those respective States and, by the way, perhaps come up with a more 
effective way, a better plan, a more aggressive plan to close that 
achievement gap rather than the one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that is 
the Federal Department of Education. That is the whole point.
  Secondly, regarding civil rights. Nothing in this resolution that 
takes back this draconian rulemaking from the Department of Education 
affects civil rights. We are very clear in the Every Student Succeeds 
Act that the civil rights protections remain. We agreed with that in a 
bipartisan way, and all of that remains. Don't let the gentleman from 
Colorado scare you into thinking anything different.
  There was a lot of talk about uncertainty from previous speakers--
uncertainty for States--and that blocking implementation of these 
regulations will create that uncertainty. Let me address that for just 
a couple of minutes.
  We, Congress, cannot allow Federal agencies to ignore the clear 
prohibitions against executive overreach. These regulations clearly 
attempt to reassert Federal control that was returned to the States by 
Congress under ESSA.

                              {time}  1630

  Repealing these regulations is the only way to give States and school 
districts the certainty that they need with sufficient time to move the 
implementation process forward. The law itself provides enough 
guidance. We were very specific how we wrote this law. We were very 
specific in the requirements needed. That removes the need to have the 
kind of rulemaking that the Department of Education, either through 
habit or through direct intent, is trying to do here. We don't need to 
do it here.
  The law itself lays out clear criteria for the State plans. It states 
explicitly that the onus is on the Department of Education to 
demonstrate how a plan does not comply with the law that we wrote and 
that the President signed into law. It does not require, and the States 
are not required, to go jump through the hoops that the Department is 
trying to have them jump through now through this rulemaking.
  The law also requires the Department to review the State plans with 
deference to State and local judgments. The Department is trying to 
take that judgment away from the States and put it under its own 
umbrella.
  Under the law, as long as States can demonstrate that their plans 
comply with the statute, they will be approved. We wrote that into the 
law. Because of this, States can have the certainty that the work they 
began can continue. The Department, with this rule, is trying to 
unravel all that. The resolution stops the Department from doing that.
  I know Congressman Costello mentioned teacher performance. Others 
have talked about student assessment participation rates. Let me give 
you a few examples for the record, Mr. Speaker. ESSA allowed States to 
determine how to hold schools accountable for assessing students. The 
final rule limits States to only four options for assessing students 
and requires schools to implement a plan to address low test 
participation--not required in the law, not part of what we are doing 
here. The Department, by doing that, is making up law.
  Regarding teacher performance and some things that Mr. Costello 
referenced, ESSA explicitly prohibited the Secretary from mandating the 
creation of teacher evaluation systems. As the Federal Government, we 
are getting out of the business of teacher evaluation systems. It 
didn't mean the States couldn't do it. It didn't mean that most States 
wouldn't do it. However, the final rule requires States to establish a 
statewide definition for what an ineffective teacher means that 
differentiates between categories of teachers.
  Now, if you look at this in effect, in practical terms, it would be 
almost impossible for States to fulfill this requirement without 
implementing a teacher and school leader evaluation, something the law 
specifically didn't require, specifically prohibited. Yet, here we are 
with the Department's rule basically making States do it. Not what was 
intended. Not what we wrote. Not what we voted on on the floor of this 
House, and not what was signed into law by the President of the United 
States at the time.
  So these are the kinds of things that we are fighting against here, 
Mr. Speaker. These are the kinds of things that H.J. Res. 57, and H.J. 
Res. 58 for that matter, would stop the Department from doing. H.J. 
Res. 57 protects the positive reforms Congress made with Every Student 
Succeeds Act and ensures that those reforms are implemented as Congress 
intended. In doing so, the resolution preserves State and local control 
over K-12 education and provides States and school districts the 
certainty they need to proceed with the plans that they are already in 
the process of writing.
  That is why a number of groups--including the National Governors 
Association; AASA, the School Superintendents Association; and the 
Council of the Great City Schools--have spoken out in support of the 
resolution. It is also why the National School Boards Association 
supports this resolution, and it is why H.J. Res. 57 is supported by 
Citizens Against Government Waste.
  I am confident that Congress will continue working in a bipartisan 
manner to empower our State and local communities to take the lead in 
accountability. There will be accountability. By putting a stop to the 
Obama administration's flawed and overreaching accountability 
regulation, however, we can keep the promise we made to reduce the 
Federal role, restore local control, and ensure all children receive 
the high-quality education that they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my strong 
opposition to H.J. Res. 57, which is another Republican proposal to 
erode the oversight and enforcement authority of the Department of 
Education.
  In 2015, Congress responded to the voice of the American people by 
passing the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) with bipartisan and 
bicameral support. This sweeping rewrite of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act gave states and local boards of education 
greater flexibility to implement plans to ensure student achievement, 
resource equity and greater accountability.
  I was happy to support the ESSA after seeking the advice of 
experienced educators and education stakeholders from Rockdale, DeKalb, 
and Gwinnett Counties, as well as throughout Georgia.
  H.J. Res. 57, on the other hand, flies in the face of Congressional 
intent by gutting a key ESSA rule developed with, and supported by 
teachers, civil rights organizations, parents and states. H.J. Res. 57 
removes civil rights protections and blocks improvements to our

[[Page 2218]]

nation's public education system by dismantling data-reporting 
requirements that ensure that the needs of underperforming groups in 
all subgroups are adequately supported. This includes African 
Americans, Latinos, and students with disabilities. The Administration 
and my Republican colleagues are playing political games that will 
ultimately harm taxpayers, teachers, and our nation's most 
disadvantaged students.
  During my time in Congress, I have worked to ensure that all students 
have access to a world-class education regardless of their background 
or zip code. I believe that all children deserve a quality education 
and that no child should ever fall between the cracks. I will continue 
fighting against Republican attempts to divest funding from public 
education and reduce equal opportunity for all students.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint 
Resolution 57. I am pleased to join Congressman Todd Rokita as an 
original cosponsor.
  As a parent, I know that success looks different for each child. I 
frequently hear from parents, teachers, and school boards in my 
district that with more local flexibility, they can better meet the 
needs of local students. This is why the Every Student Succeeds Act 
replaced the one-size-fits-all approach to K-12 education, and gave 
power back to states and school districts. Unfortunately, the previous 
administration used executive authority to impose an inflexible 
accountability system and take away the local voices; voices that are 
critical in determining how schools should be held accountable. Local 
schools, teachers, and parents, not Washington bureaucrats, know best 
what success looks like.
  Mr. Speaker, let's return authority where it belongs--with teachers, 
schools, and school districts.
  Success and accountability should be about meeting students' needs, 
not Washington's mandates. I urge my colleagues to support passage of 
House Joint Resolution 57.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 57, the CRA Resolution for Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by 
the Department of Education Relating to Accountability and State Plans 
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).
  I oppose this legislation because the regulation Republicans seek to 
rescind is intended to reduce educational opportunities in student 
achievement, quality of instruction, college readiness and other 
important outcomes.
  ESEA, the national education law, represents a longstanding 
commitment to equal opportunity for all students.
  ESEA authorizes state-run programs for eligible schools and districts 
eager to raise the academic achievement of struggling learners and 
address the complex challenges that arise for students who live with 
disability, mobility problems, learning difficulties, poverty, or 
transience, or who need to learn English.
  The original goal of the law, which remains today, was to improve 
educational equity for students from lower-income families by providing 
federal funds to school districts serving poor students.
  Typically, these school districts receive less state and local 
funding than those serving more affluent children.
  Local property taxes are typically the primary funding source for 
schools, and property values are much lower in poorer areas, making the 
funds critical to children demonstrating greater educational need.
  ESEA is the single largest source of federal spending on elementary 
and secondary education.
  ESEA demands accountability in state plans addressing deficiencies in 
high needs educational policy in return for the taxpayer dollars.
  Because of this regulation states and districts must now show that 
they are working to meet the needs and providing a quality education to 
all of their students.
  When education policy folks talk about accountability, this is what 
they mean.
  Recognizing the continuing vital need for this landmark legislation, 
the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was 
reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act, with strong bipartisan 
majorities and it was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015.
  The joint resolution before us today, would nullify the rule 
finalized by the Department of Education on November 29, 2016, relating 
to accountability and state plans under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965.
  H.J. Res. 57 is the latest Republican attempt to dismantle the 
oversight and enforcement authority of the Department of Education and 
undermine public education.
  Thus far:
  The Trump Administration nominated Betsy DeVos, a candidate for 
Secretary of Education with no practical education experience who 
pledges to redirect $20 billion in federal funding to private school 
voucher programs;
  Administration sources leaked plans to eliminate the Under Secretary 
position and outsource higher education policy to a task force headed 
by the controversial Jerry Falwell, Jr., the President of Liberty 
University;
  The Department removed all Every Student Succeeds Act technical 
assistance resources to the states from the public domain; and
  Republicans have filed two joint resolutions of disapproval to block 
and prevent re-regulation of key equity protections for students and 
educators--this bill and H.J. Res. 58, the Congressional Review Act 
(CRA) Resolution for Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the 
Department of Education Relating to Teacher Preparation Issues.
  Mr. Speaker, current education law and policy builds on key areas of 
progress in recent years, made possible by the efforts of educators, 
communities, parents, and students across the country.
  Today, high school graduation rates are at all-time highs:
  Graduation rate of U.S. public high schools: 83.2 percent for the 
2014-15 school year, an all-time high; pre-Obama: 75 percent
  By race and ethnicity:
  African Americans: 73 percent; pre-Obama: 61 percent
  Hispanics: 76 percent; pre-Obama: 64 percent
  Whites: 87 percent; pre-Obama: 81 percent
  American Indian/Alaska Native: 70 percent: pre-Obama: 64 percent
  Asian/Pacific Islander: 89 percent; pre-Obama: 91 percent
  Dropout rates are at historic lows.
  And more students are going to college than ever before.
  These achievements provide a firm foundation for further work to 
expand educational opportunity and improve student outcomes under ESSA.
  ESSA includes provisions that will help to ensure success for 
students and schools. Below are just a few benefits provided by the 
ESSA:
  1) Advances equity by upholding critical protections for America's 
disadvantaged and high-need students.
  2) Require--for the first time, that all students in America be 
taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed in 
college and careers.
  3) Ensures that vital information is provided to educators, families, 
students, and communities through annual statewide assessments that 
measure students' progress toward those high standards.
  4) Helps to support and grow local innovation including evidence-
based and place-based interventions developed by local leaders and 
educator, consistent with our Investing in Innovation and Promise 
Neighborhoods.
  5) Sustains and expands this administration's historic investments in 
increasing access to high-quality preschool.
  6) Maintains an expectation that there will be accountability, and 
action to effect positive change in our lowest-performing schools, 
where groups of students are not making progress, and where graduation 
rates are low over extended periods of time.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) passed as a 
cornerstone of President Lyndon. B. Johnson's War on Poverty was signed 
into law on April 9, 1965.
  This law brought education into the forefront of the national assault 
on poverty and represented a landmark commitment to equal access to 
quality education.
  The ESEA is a comprehensive statute that funds primary and secondary 
education, emphasizing high standards and accountability.
  As mandated in the Act, funds are authorized for professional 
development, instructional materials, resources to support educational 
programs, and the promotion of parental involvement.
  The government has reauthorized the Act every five years since its 
enactment.
  President Johnson believed that full educational opportunity should 
be our first national goal.
  From its inception, ESEA was a civil rights law.
  ESEA offered new grants to districts serving low-income students, 
federal grants for textbooks and library books, funding for special 
education centers, and scholarships for low-income college students.
  Additionally, the law provided federal grants to state educational 
agencies to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education.
  The previous version of the law, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, 
was enacted in 2002.
  NCLB represented a significant step forward for our nation's children 
in many respects, particularly as it shined a light on where students

[[Page 2219]]

were making progress and where they needed additional support, 
regardless of race, income, zip code, disability, home language, or 
background.
  NCLB put in place measures that exposed achievement gaps among 
traditionally underserved students and their peers and spurred an 
important national dialogue on education improvement.
  This focus on accountability has been critical in ensuring a quality 
education for all children, yet also revealed challenges in the 
effective implementation of this goal.
  The law was scheduled for revision in 2007, and, over time, NCLB's 
prescriptive requirements became increasingly unworkable for schools 
and educators.
  Parents, educators, and elected officials across the country 
recognized that a strong, updated law was necessary to expand 
opportunity to all students; support schools, teachers, and principals; 
and to strengthen our education system and economy.
  Recognizing this fact, in 2010, the Obama Administration joined a 
call from educators and families to create a better law that focused on 
the clear goal of fully preparing all students for success in college 
and careers.
  Congress has responded to that call allowing the Every Student 
Succeeds Act to reflect many of the priorities previously debated.
  Additionally, in 2012, the Obama Administration began granting 
flexibility to states regarding specific requirements of NCLB in 
exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state-developed plans designed 
to close achievement gaps, increase equity, improve the quality of 
instruction, and increase outcomes for all students.
  The law today, offers flexibility to states from some of the 
previously more cumbersome provisions.
  In order to qualify for this flexibility, states have to demonstrate 
that they have adopted college and career-ready standards and 
assessments, implemented school accountability systems that focused on 
the lowest-performing schools and those with the largest achievement 
gaps, and ensured that districts were implementing teacher and 
principal evaluation and support systems.
  These efforts should not be compromised.
  H.J. Res. 57 however, puts politics before America's 50 million 
public school students.
  It takes an axe to a consensus-driven ESSA rule that was developed 
with, and supported by, the broader education community, including 
states, districts, civil rights groups, parents, and teachers.
  Republicans want blanket deregulation of federal education programs 
in an attempt to stall implementation of equity-focused provisions and 
allow states and districts the ultimate flexibility to ignore laws and 
federal requirements intended to protect disadvantaged students.
  The CRA has been used only once in Congress' history.
  Using it to block regulatory action to support and improve public 
education is extreme and a gross abuse of power.
  Resolutions introduced by Republicans in the last week, including 
H.J. Res. 57, set a dangerous precedent by permanently undermining the 
Department of Education and all federal agencies.
  ESSA was passed in December of 2015 with overwhelming bipartisan and 
bicameral support, and H.J. Res. 57 is a political power play that 
would undo enforcement of key equity protections in this bipartisan 
civil rights law.
  States are currently drafting plans to implement this very 
regulation.
  ESSA affords states and districts unprecedented flexibility.
  H.J. Res. 57 would pull the rug out from under states and districts 
that are working hard to ensure the civil rights legacy of the law, 
leaving them without the clarity and direction needed to fully use new 
flexibilities and meet federal requirements.
  H.J. Res. 57 strikes at the heart of ESSA. Blocking implementation 
and reregulation of ESSA's core requirements in accountability, state 
plans, and data and reporting will leave States in limbo and jeopardize 
protections for vulnerable students that Democrats championed in 
reauthorization.
  If unhappy with the final rule, the Trump Administration should use 
administrative tools at its disposal to amend and revise the 
regulation.
  Use of CRA is a political gimmick that harms students, teachers, and 
taxpayers.
  I urge you to oppose this Republican scare tactic of a bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 91, the previous question is ordered on 
the joint resolution.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

                          ____________________