department of education provide an annual report to congress on how any policies affect local school districts. this enables local school boards to have the ability to craft policies in coordination with the communities they serve. this amendment is vitally important to our communities. from pennsylvania to illinois and beyond, the parents, the students and the school board members that they elect are truly the experts in education, not washington bureaucrats. i urge my colleagues to support the schock-meehan amendment and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the schock-meehan amendment because it really is a political exercise. it fails to fix the problems of h.r. 5, letting students down act.

the amendment is an ideological attempt to keep -- to give school districts more control but actually doesn't do that. it just creates more paperwork, more bureaucracy at the federal level like consultations and chances to dispute regulations, all of which many of which are already allowed in federal law but this would be a different subset to require that. i've been here a long time and i can't think of any administration that gave both states and local school districts more options, more flexibility, more ability to design the systems under which to work than the obama administration which there is 37 states who've undertaken race to the top which gave them great flexibility and there's 40 states that have undertaken waivers which gave them even more flexibility. and when you talk to the superintendents and when you talk to the governors in those states they're delighted to have the flexibility, to design the systems they want to be able to design and to improve get better and to

achievements by their students. now we're coming along with some continuation of some outdated, very conservative argument that all of these problems are at the federal government and the fact of the matter is nod a mferings has unleashed the skills and the talents and the desires of local school districts and states than this administration. but this is an ideological bent, it's an ideological fix that's not going to end. what it doesn't do, it doesn't correct any of the very real and very big problems that underlie this amendment in the underlying bill. because the underlying bill guts the education funding and it backs -- it locks in the sequestration levels that is going to grind down every school district that has poor students and poor schools in that district, and it reduces -- it lets states dramatically

reduce the limits of those districts. this is try to equalize the opportunity for those poor and minority children and it diverts funds for teachers away from poor schools and districts toward wealthier ones. it eliminates block grant funding with no accountability. no accountability how those funds will be spent. we just saw an amendment offered earlier today because people recognize all of that does is just -- dimirnishes the resources available for those -- diminishes the resources available for the populations in need. i oppose this amendment as i do the underlying legislation and i ask my colleagues to vote against it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. meehan: mr. speaker, how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. meehan: i'd like to yield two, three minutes to the -- let me yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two

minutes. mr. schock: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend and co-sponsor of this amendment, mr. meehan. i rise in support of my amendment to strengthen the process by which local school districts with provide meaningful firsthand input in the development of rules and regulations issued by the department of education. as a former school board member i can tell you nothing is more frustrating to school board members, 96% of whom are directly elected by the voters in their community, than having to redirect limited resources that they have to unfunded mandates contained in rules and regulations issued by the department of education. my amendment here today ensures that rules and regulations are educationally and operationally viable at the local level by ensuring that electronic exchanges of information and any regional meetings that are held by the department of education are public and notices such meetings and exchanges are pro actively provided to the -- proactively provided to all of the stakeholders. i believe this will benefit the

overall rulemaking process. my amendment prohibits the department of education from imposing additional requirements in rules, regulations and nonregulatory guidance that have not been specifically authorized in the underlying legislation. this is an important step to ensure that education policy is implemented at the local level by leaders who are held accountable by the students, parents and taxpayers they represent. nearly all states have delicated the power and authority -- delegated the power and authority to the local school boards. my amendment would ensure that local school board members can exercise the power and authority given to them. let's stop further unlegislated, unfunded mandate by the federal government and vote yes on amendment 44. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. meehan: how much time do i have, mr. speaker? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has a minute and 3/4. mr. meehan: let me yield a

minute of that time to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: -- mr. lankford: thank you, sir. this is all about the election of a local school board, a school board that's elected with the distinct of that district. they're all interconnected. they know each other and they're making decisions because we don't have a national school board. we should have local school boards. why do we do that? because we want local decisions made on if they'll have uniforms, what they'll serve at lunch, what their curriculums will be. those are local decisions that should be made because those parents know their kids extremely well and love their kids more than anyone. in oklahoma, i can ensure you that our parents love their kids and know their kids better than someone 1,300 miles away in washington, d.c. so the simple decision should be made that i have personally contacted the superintendents in my district who ask for one simple thing -- allow us to

make decisions locally. we want to know that the decisions we make are going to stick and we won't spend all of our time and all of our money hiring compliance people to connect with the federal government to know what moneys go where and what silos go where and i hear over and over again race to the top didn't give us greater flexibility. it actually said you have flexibility in the silo that we give you. they want just real flexibility. with that i'd encourage the passage of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. meehan: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let me just close my time by once again articulating the point that's been so well made by my colleagues as well that we do not have a secretary of education that is a national school board president. i have spoken to those who have dedicated their time and their professional commitment. school board leaders, local educators themselves who understand how to best create the kinds of curriculum that will most effectively serve the

children in our communities. and i ask our colleagues to strongly support the schock-meehan amendment. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. miller: yes, i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. scalise: to claim time in support of the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman offer the amendment? mr. scalise: the gentleman offers the amendment, yes, sir. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 113-158 offered by mr. scalise of

louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. and the amendment i bring forth deals specifically with reforms that many states have made. i'll talk specifically about reforms that have been made in great state of louisiana, especially as it relates to teacher evaluation and specifically what my amendment would do would be to remove the mandate that is in the legislation that requires states to adopt the federal rule on teacher evaluation. and the reason i say that is not just because louisiana has a highly successful evaluation program that's working very well for the people of louisiana but in general when you look at the successes that we've seen across the country as it relates to education reform, it's been state and local governments that have

driven those great successes. that's because the states are the incubators and our state and local governments are the most accountable to the parents who have the most at stake and concern for their children's education. and so the amendment specifically makes sure that there can be no mandate by the federal government, especially one that would override what's being done at the state level. i've seen very closely in my state. in fact, when i was in the state legislature we passed some dramatic education reforms. when you look at the city of new orleans, after hurricane katrina, before the hurricane it was probably one of the most failed, corrupt public education systems in the nation. because we made reforms, not only at the state but at the local level where we created charter schools, we had so much innovation that now other states across the country are looking to what we did as a model for how to transfer urban education. parents are actually much more involved in their children's education because they have a real stake, they have real

choices to give their children better educational opportunities. i don't want to see that interfered with by anything that might come out of the federal government. with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i claim the time in opposition and i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: as i discussed with mr. scalise in the rules committee yesterday, it's a terrible idea. it would remove any and all requirements and proof of teacher effectiveness. effectively now we have a measure called highly qualified teacher. now we agree, most of us that there are flaws in that. it's an input-based criteria rather than an output-based criteria. states with high quality teacher evaluation in place for three years. we were worried frankly about

what would happen during the three years. i offered and withdrew an amendment there would be basic reporting during the three-year period. what the scalise amendment does is we'll go through an indefinite period with no reporting, no metrics, no assurance of quality. need i remind the gentleman from louisiana that our u.s. taxpayers are in part paying the salaries of many teachers that are partially funded through special ed funds or through title 1 free and reduced lunch funds. not to mention the fact these are the teachers, the most important person in the outcome of the education of the child in making sure kids succeed. here we are saying, look, i was worried about this three-year transition period saying forever, from now on no reporting, no requirements on whether a teacher is high quality or not, no evaluations. look, it's hard to get evaluations right. i was in the private sector and we did employee evaluations every year and decide if some will be promoted and you know

what, it's always hard. there's no 100% right. but to somehow say you shouldn't do it, you shouldn't evaluate your employees is completely the wrong answer. at any private company that engages in that strategy is going to go out of business. just as schools that engage in that strategy and districts and the federal government encourages it, allows it, as it does in this amendment, will be o the detriment of kids and do nothing more than actually making it less likely that good quality teachers will be in the classroom for kids. so i call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserve? does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: i yield one minute to the chairman of the committee, mr. kline from minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. this amendment will eliminate the requirement, the mandate for states and school districts to develop teacher evaluation

but not prevent them from developing these systems if they so choose. state and local school districts have impressive teacher evaluation systems and i applaud it. the federal government can pour them in this en-- support them in this endeavor giving them the flexibility to meet their local unique needs. ultimately, mr. chairman, states and school districts need the flexibility to do the activities that will serve the teachers and students best and therefore i support the gentleman's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment to remove the requirement of states and school districts complement teacher evaluation systems. we put $17 billion into the system each year and we need to see if we can see if those

responsible for implementing it have the opportunity to improve their skills, to improve their talents, to collaborate with one another so they can improve the teacher and learning environment and that's the goal of the evaluation. to take the skills that teachers bring to the classroom and see them in consoul take with others, with their principals, with the colleagues whether or not we can improve their skills to deliver the education that we know our children need. and we know that all fichers are not of the same -- teachers are not of the same talent. by having evaluations you have the ability to then raise the skills of those individuals. and if you would travel the country and you would talk to younger teachers all across the country, they'll tell you how excited they are about evaluation systems, how excited they are about the collaboration, working with one another. i visited teachers in the process of doing that and developing that information and developing the skills and watching one another teach and present the various lesson plans and curriculums and weigh

back and forth what was more effective, what was less effective, what would they change and how they would do it differently next time. the idea we would not have those evaluation systems, under this legislation, under our legislation, we encourage local districts to do that. . we want teachers to be in the design of those systems. the idea that you would not require some evaluation of the people who are delivering this education is to go back to a time when it didn't matter, i guess, who dropped out of school or who didn't thrive or do well. that's not this economy or our social structure and not the desire, hopes and aspirations of parents and the students in those schools. i would hope that we would oppose this amendment. and defeat this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana has 2 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. scalise: i yield one minute to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: the speaker on the other side on one of the other amendments said this isn't the level we should be making these decisions. no matter how noble the goal may be, this isn't the level where these decisions ought to be made. i taught for 28 years and had multiple evaluations and were positive. if i had any input i wish to give, i could access the school district and the state. if i was on the federal level, no one in the department of education would care. the best evaluations come from parents. parents have the same limitations of which i spoke. their access on the federal level is almost nonexistent, the scalise amendment does not limit

the evaluations but says you do them in a proper way and that states sometimes could have a better idea than we do. and if that happens, states should have every opportunity to implement their better idea. this eliminates the mandate and provides flexibility and promotes a better outcome. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i reserve. mr. scalise: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scalise: i reserve. mr. miller: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: prepared to close, mr. chairman. i want to address a few of the points that were made by my friend from colorado, he said and i quote, it's hard to get evaluations right. i actually agree with him on that statement. if that's the case, then the question we are posed with is, who is best suited to evaluate

teachers, some unelected bureaucrat in washington or a state or local official who is directly accountable to the parents of those children. we aren't presented with some false choice whether or not to evaluate teachers. my legislature fought it out and passed a teacher evaluation program that is doing well and getting good results. that's the kind of innovation we should be encouraging and shouldn't have this idea that one size fits all in washington and that washington knows best f the state can do better, too bad, that's their fault because the federal government wants to tell them how to evaluate their teachers. trust the people who know best and are accountable to the parents of our students and that is our state and local school boards. and this amendment says if they ave a better way to evaluate teachers, they are better suited to do and not some unelected bureaucrat in washington. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. miller: i ask for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 113-158, offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore and a member each opposed will have five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: i rise today to offer an amendment along with ms.

wilson from florida and danny davis of illinois. this amendment is straightforward. it is protective in nature and ensures that high poverty schools are not adversely affected by h.r. 5's proposed change and the funding allocation formula for teacher support and development under title 2. now, mr. chairman, if we don't adopt this amendment, we may inadvertently break a long bipartisan agreement that we have had regarding our fundamental needs to ensure our low-income students are not assigned less qualified teachers than their advanced peers. the reality is that a school district serving students in poverty face many challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers as well as other qualified staff. i believe the rules committee made this in order because they wanted the body to have an

opportunity to meet this long bipartisan agreement. h.r. 5 as currently drafted would totally eliminate the current formula, which focuses on funding students in poverty and replaces it with a formula that equally weights poverty and population. as win, we have strong reason to fear that h.r. 5 would result in federal dollars stipend from the schools of poorest students and award them to schools and hout of poverty. our amendment simply requires this change could not be enacted if our fears were realized and the secretary of education would determine that such a change would reduce funding to districts serving students in poverty. this amendment would not add a penny to the cost of the bill. our intention is only to

safeguard the very teacher supports that helps us close the achievement gap for low-income students. the bill we are considering today h.r. 5 consistently backs away from our long-standing federal commitment to direct funding to students with the greatest need including those attending high-poverty schools. there are a lot of factors that affect the child's performance at schools and some of these we can't control. but this is one thing we can control, the level of quality of the people standing in front of our children. and i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i rise to claim the time in opposition, but i do not intend to oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> as i read the gentlewoman's amendment, i see it will protect title 2 funding to high-poverty school districts.

although the students success act that we are debating here on the house floor right now funds school districts on an equal playing field on 50% poverty and 50% population ratio, it is important to protect funding to high-poverty school districts. the amendment will not allow the title 2 formula to go into effect unless the secretary certifies that funding is protected at fiscal year 2013 vels and new money will be allocated on a 65% poverty, 35% population formula. bottom line is that using these funds, the students success act gives states and school districts the flexibility of how they want to spend their money. this is not our money. the property of the states and states' residents. funds flow over to the state so ey can set their own funding

for programs they want to fund. this ensures, superintendents, principals and teachers are making funding not washington bureaucrats or even the secretary of education. public and private entities can apply to the state and partner with school districts to focus on teacher and school leader preparation and development. although i disagree with the gentlewoman that the students success act is a retreat. in fact, i think it is a very progressive set of reforms found in the students success act, i do support her amendment which protects funding for high-poverty districts which gives districts the flexibility to use teacher funds as they see fit. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized. ms. moore: i thank the gentleman for his support. yield time to my colleague representative wilson from

florida. the chair: the gentlewoman is ecognized. ms. wilson: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. as an educator, elementary school principal and school board member, i can attest to a simple fact. there is simply no factor that matters more for children's achievement than teacher quality. teachers matter. research consistently uphold this fact. yet in urban and rural areas, students in low-income areas are constantly assigned less qualified teachers than their wealthier peers. these young minds are treated as periments in little research dishes. poor schools face impossible prospects of recruiting teachers

and once teachers are fielded, educators often need additional resources and support to do their jobs effectively. students in that poverty fall farther and farther behind, losing hope of ever catching up. this is a commonsense amendment that would ensure that title 2 changes under this bill would not be enacted if these changes pulled funds away from schools serving students in poverty. mr. chairman, this is not a partisan issue. there has been bipartisan consensus on the importance of teacher development in low-income areas for ages. a criterion for teacher development is so important. if it isn't, it would hurt children in red states and rural areas as well as children in blue states and urban areas. i urge my republican colleagues

stand a -- take a stand for low-income children. please support this amendment. i yield back to my colleague. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: we yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: i rise in support of this amendment. i would say to the gentlelady who just spoke that this is not experimenting with our children. we are empowering parents, empowering teachers so that the students can have better success. this is an evolution of our education policy in my opinion. in that same vein, the gentlewoman said that teachers matter. and in that respect, i want to again reiterate for this house,

those of us who have shown in writing their strong support for the students success act, including the american association of school administrators, the council of forf state school officers, american private education. concerned women for america, national association of independent schools, the national alliance for public charter schools and national association of charter school authorizers. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition?

mr. bishop: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 113-158, offered by mr. bishop of utah. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. in the constitution, it established a specific relationship between the federal government and the state. called dual sovereignty and asked people to be loyal to their state and federal government. james wilson talking about what they had done as a balanced power experiment and said they will maintain a relationship like the planet, congresswoman plea meanting each other. what his concern was one of those entities might act like a comet and go off on its own path

running into any material or object that is in its way and chaos and destruction would result in that. . the amendment i'm proposing is a school district which is a creator and the creation of the state to circumvent the state and make a deal with the federal government for any kind of grant or loan they wish to accomplish and actually be required to report not to the state but to the federal government, circumvent the state totally. like if a state, for example, were to want to have some limited involvement in a program under the provision that is in this particular bill, it would be possible for a rogue district to violate that proposal or that policy of the state, make their own deal with the federal government and enter into that agreement and report directly with them causing not only to void policy but a great deal of confusion

in the process as well. we have a deal we can work easily with the states. the local districts, that is not in the purview -- it's definitely an extra constitutional approach to it. mr. chairman, with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. miller: yes, i do. and i yield myself two minutes. the chair: is the gentleman opposed to the amendment? mr. miller: yes, of course. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i thank the the gentleman for reminding me. i rise in opposition of the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. i don't understand it. if the state doesn't make application for various funds that are available under title 2, i don't know why you would prohibit a district from doing so. i don't know the rationale for the state decision not to make application, but that may have

very little to do with the needs of a particular school district. in my state it might be a large district like los angeles or it might be a small rural district in the northern corners of the state. if they feel that these funds would help them and they have a need for those, i don't know why. i don't know why we're interfering with the relationships with the states and the federal government. i don't pretend to be familiar with the exact governance in the state of utah, but in california the districts are pretty darn autonomous and our county offices of education are very autonomous and very often the county office will apply for these kinds of funds to bring in an area of smaller school districts to bring them those funds tilize

in the most efficient way to continue. most of title 2 is about the development of teachers and professional developments. i would oppose this amendment. i think it just makes it much more difficult and more bureaucratic for local school districts. we've heard time an again here these are the people who know best. so apparently they know better than the state officials but we'll let the state officials block them from doing what is best. when what they think is best is accessing title 2. i would oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the comments of the gentleman from california but i have to take issue with him. there is no state which a local district or a state or a city or county is not -- is not -- is autonomous to the state itself. states create those entities. they can add to them. they can eliminate them. they are responsible for them.

this is not an esoteric philosophical debate. this is a situation which this this ppened and eliminates it from happening again. there was a policy in which this department of education tried to circumvent the states. quoting from the education week. department of education has responded with the announcement terms offer different circumventing not just congress but to states. in response to that, the superintend from virginia says this move undermines the state. the commissioner from colorado said that this would bypass state authority and result in unintended consequences. from the secretary of education in pennsylvania, to allow districts to go directly to the fed it would be difficult to see who is exactly responsible for reforming in the state. districts are creators in the state. this would create a quiet mentality. one said this is a massive overreach by washington into

local school policy and blatant disregard for states' education decisionmaking authority. here is the bottom line. states are the creation -- the federal government can't change states. states can change local entities. and for the local entities to be able to bypass the state is an improper we lakesship. we should not have that. i would reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i didn't say they were autonomous. i say they operate nearly autonomous. if the state would rein them in in california and utah they would rein them in. they make applications all the time for title 2 funds. the state of california, colorado, may want to do something about that. that sounds like a state problem. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: state rein them in

but should not be part of the policy in this bill. i ask to remove this section that is extra constitutional from the bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. miller: i rise to ask unanimous consent that my request for a recorded vote of amendment number 12 be withdrawn and the chair put the question de novo. the chair: is there objection to the request. seeing none, the question is on the amendment. offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 113-158 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. young of alaska. amendment number 4 by mr. luetkemeyer from missouri. amendment number 11 by mr. meehan from pennsylvania. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

the the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-158 by the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-158 offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 263, the nays are 161. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-158 by the gentleman from missouri, mr.

luetkemeyer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-158 offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise nd be counted. a sufficient number having isen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 240, the nays --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 241, the nays are 182, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in house report 113-158 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 113 -158 offered by mr. meehan of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise nd be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of presentatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 239, the nays are 187. the amendment is adopted.

the chair: the members will lear the well. the chair: members will remove their conversation from the floor.

the chair: now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. tonko: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 113-158,n house report offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: the house will be in order. pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, and a member opposed will each control five

minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. i thank our ranking member for the opportunity to take time to explain my amendment. i was offering a commitment to stem education but i intend to withdraw my amendment and offer support for the democratic substitute which has dedicated funding streams. shortages of ce science, technology -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. please remove your conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. the committee will be in order. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: many schools face shortages of science, technology, engineering and math teachers and they have inadequate opportunities for subjects for professional

development. there is rarely an extensive curriculum available to help support the teaching of these subjects especially engineering education. my amendment would have addressed these funds to support development of stem education. i know firsthand the importance and value of a stem education. having graduated with a degree in mechanical and industrial engineering and i'm proud to represent new york's capital region which is a shining example of what a robust education. g.e. and global fundries and research opportunities like the sensor for nano science and engineering lead the way in stem jobs and education. these are well-paying, cutting-edge occupations that ensures that america remains competitiveness. as we work to speed up our economic recovery. jobs in the future are going to

rely heavily on professionals with a stem education background. stem education will spur american innovation and research and development. america has a track record of leading in new innovative technologies from car assembly lines to the creation of the internet. in order to stay an economic global power, we must preserve a robust commitment to stem education. there will be 1.75 million job openings by 2018 yet without a robust investment in the type of education these jobs require, there will be significant shortage of college graduates to fill these careers. the time to invest is now. with that, i would like to yield two minutes to my good friend and colleague from massachusetts and strong leader in promoting this issue, mr. kennedy. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for two minutes. contend contend i thank the ranking member -- mr. kennedy: i thank the ranking member. this issue is important for my district and local work force. i rise in support of a bipartisan amendment and continued work we need to do here in congress to support and expand engineering education. this amendment would have taken advantage of existing title 2 funding to bring expertise from stem fields into professional development we provide for our teachers. it reflects the goal that my colleague and i introduced. and reflects the heart of the elementary and secondary education act which we consider for re-authorization. it is quality opportunity for american education. engineering and technical skills are going to be anchors of the 21st century economy. the most rapidly growing sectors of our economy and our country's

growth right now are the innovation sectors. advanced manufacturing, sciences, clean energy. they predict expansive growth. a very bright spot for our economic future. it is the job of our schools to make sure that every child from every zip code has access to education and fully engage in this economy. the more kids we educate in these fields, the wider and deeper our prosperity will. while we withdraw this amendment, we will work with our colleagues to strengthen our commitment to stem education by preparing today's students and tomorrow's workers for good jobs in the innovation sectors. i thank my colleague. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in house report 113-158 offered by mrs. brooks of indiana. the chair: the gentlewoman from from indiana, mrs. brooks, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. sblookssblooks the students success anth is a good bill. mrs. brooks: we have an attempt that would make clarifying changes and adds computer science in title 2, the teacher

preparation title. this clarifies that federal funds may be used to support the training and teaching of teachers of computer science and stem science. it allows federal funds to be used for much needed professional teacher development in computer science and doesn't cost taxpayers and wouldn't impose any new mandate. it provides the additional flexibility to educators how they choose to spend their federal education dollars. even with the .7 unemployment rate, thousands of jobs remain unfilled because our classrooms haven't provided a.m. will opportunities to learn computer science. it will become more serious. 2020, expected that half of the 9.2 million u.s. stem jobs will be in computing or i.t.-related and if we don't increase access, these jobs will remain unfilled

or employers will find workers overseas exporting those jobs or importing the labor to fill them. google, mpanies like microsoft and this amendment will help women and minorities to choose computer science as a career. in 2011, 19% of the advanced placement were women. even though women represented 56% of the test takers overall and 25% of the computer science work force is female with 3% of those being frib-american and 1% latino. nine states require computer science to graduate from high school and one of the reasons more do not, we don't encourage our schools to use funds from computer science. this amendment remedies that

fact. training innovators requires a new focus on the skills that will drive our 21st century work force. empowering our superintendents, principals and educators to provide that effective curriculum will ensure more students enter with the skills they need. and close the gender and race gaps that have existed. let's do everything we can to prepare our kids for success in tomorrow's tech-driven and information-driven economy. i ask my colleagues to stand with us and pass this amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i claim time in opposition even though i'm not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: i rise today to support this amendment that i was pleased to work on with representative brooks which would clarify that federal funds

could be used for computer science including professional development, to make sure teachers have the skills and knowledge they need to make sure that their students have -- can receive the instruction they need to have jobs in the 21st century. this is based on the computer science education act which we introduced earlier this year. it's more important than ever to ensure our education system meets the demands of the 21st century work force. however, there is a fundamental miss-match when the jobs skills and and the schools today. one thing we haven't kept up is computing and computer science. 1.4 million computer jobs by 2020 and top 10 massest growing educational groups and we will have even more jobs than we have computer science students to fill them. without high quality teachers to

introduce students, our students won't have the opportunity to have some of these jobs and explore this field and many of these jobs will go overseas. i'm pleased that ranking member miller has included computer science in the definition of stem subjects in the democratic substitute, which i strongly support. and this amendment would make a corresponding change to the underlying bill to ensure that computer science will be treated similarly to other important academic areas. and i think it highlights a ommonsense adaptation why we align with the real needs to make sure kids have more exposure to computer science. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to provide flexibility and prepare our nation's students for the jobs of the future and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. . . . mrs. brooks: i would yield a minute and 45 seconds to the gentlelady from washington. the chair: the gentlelady from washington is recognized for one minute and 45 seconds. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you very much. i rise to applaud my colleagues' amendment, as well as the committee's work on this important issue. the availability and mastery of stem subjects really hold the key to a competitive future for america. and especially with our younger children, the opportunities that a stem education hold are vast. no matter what the field. so, i was surprised to learn, as someone that's been working on increasing awareness for stem education, that computer science is not recognized as a stem subject. and it's true, despite the fact that computer science is the highest paid college degree today, with the number of jobs available growing at twice the rate of the national average. in fact, by 2020 it is predicted

that there will be more than 1.4 million jobs in the computing field. yet, only 2% of math and science students will graduate with a computer science degree. fewer students than a decade ago. i'm proud to say that washington state's been on the forefront of this initiative, recently passing legislation to recognize it as a core academic subject. it holds the key to our technological success as a nation. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and would reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington yields back. the gentlewoman from indiana is recognized. mrs. brooks: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my friend, the gentleman from colorado, for working with me on this amendment, as well as my colleague, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, for her thoughtful comments, particularly with respect to her state. and for their support on this issue. i believe this will go a long way toward guaranteeing our

students are ready and that our teachers are ready to teach our students that they can be ready for that 21st century job market. i encourage all members to support this bipartisan amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from indiana right fields back the balance of her time -- indiana yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in house report 113-158 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. is an is: this amendment

opportunity to highlight the many successes that charter schools and public school choice have brought to our students across the country. i ore i came to congress founded two charter schools and i served as superintendent of a charter school that serves english language learners and has four campuses across colorado and new mexico. i'm pleased to offer this amendment which would ensure that charter schools are able to use federal funds in a more flexible manner, to ensure strong school foundations. the charter school program is a critical life line in supporting public charter schools across the country and i want to thank ranking member miller and chairman kline for working with me to support the replication and expansion of the very best charter schools and the emergence of new, transformational public charter school models that we can all learn from across public education. as a recent stanford credo study found, charter schools that are success envelope producing strong academic progress from the start tend to remain strong and successful schools over

times -- over time. proving this is a durable phenomena. unfortunately we've heard from countless school principals that they don't have the flexibility onspend these charter grants the areas that would help them the most. my amendment, which i'm offering with congressman petri, would allow charter schools to receive federal funding through the charter schools program, to use their grant dollars for more vital and important startup costs like professional development, teacher training, instructional materials and minor facilities costs. i remember when we were starting a charter school and we weren't able to use some of the charter startup funds on things like chairs and tables because they were considered capital equipment, yet those were a real cost. before the official enrollees start, you have to have chairs on that first day, when kids arrive. this amendment will help make that happen. the amendment also allows per-people revenue to be more affordable in following the child, by providing assurance that when students are enrolled part-time in one school and part-time in another, the districts are able to share

revenue. this is important because increasingly kids are taking advantage of yop online programs offered by school districts and charter schools. this kind of hybrid education is, sometimes entirely within a public school, sometimes within a charter school and a public school, and empowering the parents to be able to share and have a kid involved with both programs can for many families mean the best of both worlds. being able to have the social environment of the school, along with the advantages of online learning at home. this assurance will provide states with an incentive to provide more innovative funding models that expand learning opportunities and encourage hybrid education and the personalization of education for every child. including competency-based education as well. finally, this amendment would provide assurance that charter schools are doing substantial outreach to low-income and underserved populations. we know that some performing charter schools are leading on this issue, but we want to make sure they continue to lead the way in providing access and choice for families and that all charter schools can do more to

serve those who need the most help. i want to thank chairman kline and ranking member miller for working with me on this issue and urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i want to commend the gentleman for his amendment and thank him for all of his work and leadership that he's brought to the committee. on charter schools. and i'll vote for the amendment if the gentleman can say again, five times, starter charter startup funds. if you can say that five times. if you can say that really quickly five times then i'll vote for the amendment. mr. polis: thank you. i certainly enjoy talking about charter startup funds and charter school programs on the floor of the house at every opportunity. to educate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with what ranking member miller and chairman kline already know about the important contributions the public charter schools have made to serve at-risk kids across the country. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition. but i certainly do not intend to oppose. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the chair. and i thank the gentleman from colorado for offering this amendment, along with mr. petri for his work on this amendment. it's another example of the fact that, as we work through this process in committee, and here on the house floor, there's a lot of opportunity for the bill to get better. for the language to get better. and i say that as just one of the authors. i rise in support of this amendment which clarifies some of the uses for charter school startup grants and ensures charter schools by reaching out to underserved populations so they may have an opportunity to attend a charter school. recently i had the opportunity to visit the sense charter school in my home state of indiana and what i saw in the students there was again nothing short of young people who are reaching and exceeding their

potential. what that visit also showed, and i have seen it in other schools as well, including one right here in washington, d.c., this week is that when given the choice, parents will put their children in the school that best fit their educational needs. choice works in funding -- and funding shouldn't be tied to any sort of cookie-cutter standards or programs. it should be about what works and what doesn't. parents know their children and as we've heard on the house floor all afternoon and into the evening, i dare anyone here in washington to say, mr. chairman, that they know our children better than we do. they are the best to make the evaluation, not bureaucrats. charter schools level the playingfield for children of all different socioeconomic backgrounds. they allow parents, regardless of their means, to get their children out of a school knot not meeting their needs and find an educational environment that fits their unique learning

style. the charter school startup grants are a critical resource to help open more charter schools to provide greater choice for students. so instead of throwing good money of a bad on failed education bureaucracy, let's devote these funds to good programs, to help prepare charter school teachers and classrooms to make a lasting difference in the lives of our children. so once again i appreciate both gentlemen's support for charter schools and i would urge the house to support the amendment and also to support the student success act and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to be clear, while this amendment helps empower social entrepreneurs and charter school founders and charter school management organizations that serve more kids, it in no way addresses the major underlying flaws of this piece of legislation. the piece of legislation and the underlying bill as a whole are an enormous step backward for

accountability and transparency and as amended on the floor, have taken an even further step back. for instance, with the scalise amendment which takes away all romping -- reporting and requirements with regard to teacher quality, not only removing the highly qualified teacher concept, not only abolishing any intervening accountability measures, but actually gets rid of the ultimate accountability of performance-based measure which is are included in the initial kline bill after three years, but have now been stripped out entirely. i have a bill, along with susan davis, the seller act, with a would implement a similar concept of providing accountability for teachers. in addition, the watering down of standards, i believe a better name for this underlying bill in fact would be a race to the bottom, because that's exactly what it is producing in terms of districts not accounting for kids with disabilities, in terms of districts adopting standards that are not college and careerhood -- career ready. and i deeply appreciate working

with representative petri and the majority on this bill and i urge -- on this amendment, and i urge a yes vote on the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 18 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, make in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in house report 113-158 offered by mrs. velazquez of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york for five minutes. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. mr. chairman, millions of

children in our country are falling through the cracks. every day children sit in classrooms, more worried about the emptiness in their stomachs, the danger of their walk home or thing in their apartment. every afternoon these children return home to families who don't know how to support their education. and every year these kids drop out of school, don't pass on to the next grade, or pass on without having been properly prepared. the family engagement centers, established by this legislation, will work to bring community-based organizations, school districts, educators, school administrators and parents together to meet childrens' educational needs. this holistic approach focuses on preparing children for a bright future. family engagement centers faced serious obstacles in reaching

many parents, however. there is the single mother working two jobs, the parents who feel intimidated by algebra or literature because they were never taught those subjects. and millions of immigrant families who work hard every day but have trouble deciphering the notice the schools sent home. they work on reaching these low-income students and parents and they reach out to students and parents that lack their resources that families have, especially those that might have difficulty communicating with educators and school administrators. the blame for our failing schools cannot be placed on our students. they are too preoccupied with the violence that may meet them on the street corner.

the blame lies with the system, a system too overwhelmed to worry about our children. that is unacceptable. when parents don't have the resources to engage, don't feel comfortable engaging or cannot engage without the help of a translator, it is difficult to encourage them to participate in their child's education. you can walk into virtually any community and find families in this situation. this family wants to see their children live the american dream but they feel they cannot help or have trouble communicating in a system that doesn't speak their language. this amendment helps bring families into the mix so goal.ion becomes a 24/7 when parents and schools work

together, they help. it is a constant process, reinforced by everyone. we all know it takes a village to raise a child. family engagement centers help to bring that together and focus on the needs of the child. my amendment ensures that villagers and children are not left out because they do not have the same resources or speak the same language as the rest of the village and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. rokita: i claim time in opposition but i do not intend to oppose. the chair: charkede. mr. rokita: this adds a requirement to conduct outreach to low-income families as i understand the gentlelady's

presentation. the intent of this program is to help parents better engage their students to increase their academic achievement and i support these centers to help them. i appreciate my colleague's effort and i urge support of the amendment as well as the entire students success act. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mr. miller: would the gentlewoman yield? i commend you for offering this amendment. for touring schools and talking to parents and talking to school officials, where we have these kinds of resources to engage parents, the outcomes -- the outcomes of the students are very often dramatically improved. the participation by the parents is dramatically improved.

the participation by the parent at home with the students is changed in a very dramatic fashion. just recently in the north bay in the san francisco area in napa county, participation of the parents with english-learning students and getting the parents to come together and understand this technology, how it can help their children learn english and help them and partnering with the parents, that they can use it for job search and the engagement was phenomenal and these students continue to soar as they are now in the third grade. these kinds of possibilities where you bring parents and get that kind of involvement, it changes it so much. a middle school in my district, not only tore down and rebuilt it, but we made it a community school. and there are parents on that campus all of the time engaged with their kids' education and

their own education. i commend you. this is a very important amendment as we seek to have parents involved in schools. and thank you so much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in house report 113-158 offered by mr. mullin of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. mullin and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. mullin: i thank champlee

kline for working with my office on several provisions that affected the program. is bill goes a long way to affect the aid program. and working with my office on a provision related to heavily impacted school districts. my amendment would strike the language in the bill that would make payment of a school district in one or both eligible for payments as individual local individual agency but not when consolidated. this provision would make the ineligible consolidated schools be eligible to receive funding. this requires limited funds to stretch even further. this amendment would remove the text allowing school districts to adjust their student counts mid-year. it puts a strain on straighting the funds which could delay payments to our school districts. schools are allowed to adjust

their counts only annually. this amendment would take the current instruction program and make it a competitive grant program. the program fluctuates between an apportioned fund to school districts and competitive grant program. while making the program completely a competitive grant program, we would be allowing school districts to be awarded based on needs than just giving them funds on an annual basis. i'm willing to withdraw my amendment and ask the chairman to work with me in the future on this issue. i move to withdraw my amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. mr. mullin: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. it is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 20, printed in house report 113-158

offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from new jersey, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank chairman kline on his legislation today and the entire issue that is before congress today. he has three notable goals. restoring local control, reducing the local footprint and empowering parents as well and has succeeded in crafting a bill. for too long now, all across his nation, parents, teachers, administrators, the people that are closest and most directly responsible for are students have spent their time fighting federal education mandates rather than focusing on teaching our students. growing federal intrusion into the education system has been an unmitigated failure which has

t improved students' achievement. i have worked with the chairman to include language to clarify that states are not required to accept federal funds and federal mandates that are tied to them and engage in the activity they need to. states are not required to participate in any of the federal education programs. this language and the students success act as a whole recognizes the american commitment to the principles of federalism which allows for competition and innovation. i thank chairman kline for his leadership and helping stem the federal intrusion into our education system and i yield 30 seconds to mr. row kita. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rokita: i think this is a good amendment and was pleased to incoorpt it into the manage er's -- manager's amendment. and this amendment will clearly

establish the rights of states to opt out of the programs and the state cannot be forced to participate in any program and i yield to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i withdraw my amendment and urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 21 113-158.n house report offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i believe in the constitution as our founding fathers meant it to be, limited government with the enumerated

powers of all branches of government, congress and every branch. as a result, i don't believe there is a federal role in education at all. these powers ought to be long to he states and to the people. parents and teachers should direct the education of their children, not the federal government. since 1965, the federal government has spent a total of $2 trillion. this federal role has resulted in mandate after mandate and regulation after regulation being forced upon school superintendents, principals, teachers, parents and students with little measurable gain in quality of education. the underlying bill reduces the burden which came out of no child left behind. i call it no teacher left unshack willed. i don't believe that it goes far

enough. but i can appreciate the movement away from total federal control, slight as it may be. that being said, the final say on many education issues will remain in the hands of what i like to call fat cat bureaucrats here in washington, d.c. men and women within the department of education who pull in an average salary of over $101,000 a year despite the fact that many of them have never taught a child how to read. that's twice the average salary of teachers in my home state of georgia. why is this a problem? i'm sure that in of these bureaucrats are considered to be so-called experts in the field of education. but they don't know the individual needs of each community school district or student. the parents, teachers and students who are subject to

their requirements don't know much about them either. my amendment would change all that. it would require the secretary of education to include in the reporting that's requested by the underlying bill, the average salaries of employees whose positions are eliminated due to program consolidation as well as the average salaries of the remaining salaries in the department, according to their job function. my amendment would bring transparency to the department. and hopefully, it will begin the discussion about how scares education dollars ought to be spent. i urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment, an amendment of transparency, and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. miller: i claim time in opposition. i rise in opposition to this amendment.

this is some kind of political exercise. i don't know what the value of this is to the public. it's to take federal officials in the department of education, including the secretary and somehow going to create a lot of -- make work for them. and i think it's unnecessary. i don't quite understand the theory behind it. there is program consolidation going on and we will learn the average wage of people whose jobs because of sequestration at the moment, were eliminated and i don't know how that will help the education of young children and then figure out the average salaries. all this information is available to the public. but we'll go through this some computation and those who are left making more than $100,000, i don't know what this has to do

with the education of young children across this nation and again, i know we had to pass an amendment to say this, there is nothing that requires any state, any school district from taking -- not accepting these programs. you have to sign up. you have to make application for programs. you don't make applications, you don't get them. this isn't forced down your throat. but it's very hard to make sense out of this amendment and i yield. . mr. broun: as we consolidate programs. mr. miller: i understand transparency when it's a value. i understand transparency when it's directed to a specific purpose. this is transparency in the sense of the general knowledge of these wages is a matter of public record. as your salary and my salary is a matter of public record. when you get it all done,

compiled, then what are you going to do, send out notices to everybody in the united states, where this resides, how they can get a hold of it, put it online and that's what you're going to spend your money doing? it's already available. they can look up somebody in the department of ed -- mr. broun: would the gentleman yield? the purpose is, as we consolidate programs, we have all these employees in the department of education that are going to lose a lot of their function. and as we do so, particularly with sequestration and with the scarce dollars in the educational -- well, with the federal government across the board, we need to know who's doing what and what they're being paid and what they're being paid for. mr. miller: reclaiming my time, why doesn't the appropriations just dell the congress the results -- tell the congress the results of sequestration? why don't they put out a press release and tell the people, this is what happened? why do you have to mandate all of the sort of make-work.

i thought the purpose was to try to eliminate unnecessary work for the people? mr. broun: will the gentleman yield? mr. miller: the gentleman has time remaining and i don't have much time. and i would just say that, again, this really doesn't address the major concerns underliing this bill and that is that this really, this bill continues to let students down and this amendment does nothing to ensure the students graduate from high school. the amendment doesn't do anything to make sure that the students with disabilities, who become invisible, you want to talk about transparency in this bill, you want to talk about serious trance personsy, in this bill -- transparency, in this bill students with disabilities become invisible as to how they're doing with education and have they had a chance to demonstrate what they learned? this legislation doesn't do that and this amendment doesn't help that in terms of transparency. it's some mindless transparency about the wages of governmental officials that's already transparent in all matter of public record. it doesn't do anything about

what the impact of sequestration on the poor schools and some of the poorest districts in the country, trying toad cate some of the poorest kids in this -- trying to educate some of the poorest kids in this country, but this bill grinds away on those and this amendment doesn't change it and this amendment doesn't change the block brants -- grants that now allow money to leave the public sector, for public schools that are in desperate need of these resources, taking care of the title 1 students and schools and then sends that off to the private sector. so, the transparency is here is all wrong. the real transparency is what this legislation does and the american people ought to understand how damaging this is to our local schools all across this country and how exceptionally damaged this legislation is to the poorest schools in our country. and in our states and to the students who are going to those schools, trying to achieve a first-class education and that opportunity's being denied to them under this legislation.

and i reserve the balance of my time -- i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: mr. chairman, i inquire how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from georgia has two minutes remaining. mr. broun: two minutes. i'd like to yield one minute to my friend. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. rokita: i thank the chair and the gentleman for his amendment. i rise in strong support of this amendment. this is an authorizing bill. this is the appropriate place to have this language and this discussion. in fact, it builds on language that's already in the bill. of course the appropriations process is also a good time, good place to have this discussion. you know, it strikes me that if those trusted to manage our federal government effectively managed their resources, maybe something like sequestration itself wouldn't have have alarmed so many of them. this amendment certainly wouldn't be necessary if there was responsible management of the bureaucracy. manage your resources responsibly or congress will have to. that's simply what this amendment does.

broun broun -- mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. i was interested in my good friend from california's openlys and he just very displayed the difference in philosophy between my friends on the other side and many of us on this side and that's a difference of opinion. my friends on the other side seem to think the federal government needs to direct and be involved in everything involved in human endeavor although constitutionally we don't have the authority to do that. and this is an amendment that just asks for transparency. so hopefully we the people across this country can see who is doing what within the department of education and it just opens up the opportunity so that as we do consolidate the various programs within the department, that we can see what the bureaucrats within the

department are being paid and what they're doing for that amount of money that they're receiving out of the federal treasury. we all need to be held accountable. we all need to be held responsible. and this is just a means of just not adding work. the gentleman said it's a do-nothing amendment. well, he should support it then if it's a do-nothing ealed. -- amendment. i don't understand why he's so objected to it and hope that he will change his mind and support it. i have tremendous respect for my friend and he and i -- i consider him a good friend and he's been a great member of congress. and he's fought very hard for his philosophy. our philosophies just seem to be a little different and he i encourage everybody, all members, to support this transparency amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have. it the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. rokita: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house, having had under consideration. report direct mess to that it has come to nos remain title of the resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee on the whole house has had under

consideration h.r. 5 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 22, u.s.c., 276-h and the order of the house of january 3, 2013, of the following members on the part of the house to the mexico-united states interparliamentary group. the clerk: mr. mccaul of texas, chairman. mr. duffy of wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 22, u.s.c., 276-d and the order of the house of january 3, 2013, of the following members on the part of the house to the canada-united states interparliamentary group. the clerk: mr. husinga of

michigan, mrs. miller of ichigan. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. rokita: mr. speaker, i move the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have. it the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

>> school districts would have a lot more say on how they turn around the lowest performing schools and address progress when it comes to achievement but especially the poor and minority students and snuents special education and they'd have a lot more flexibility in using federal found if -- funding. >> it nation no child left behind less onerous. still talk of a federal law on

k-12 policy so this will sort of relax federal standards for states and school districts and allow them to do what they think is best for schools and students, according to the bill's supportsers. >> on the other hand critics say it will lead to lower academic standards. what do they mean by that? >> the bill doesn't ask school districts to set particular achievement goals as they do now under the no child left behind act so states wouldn't have sort of that federal hammer coming down on them prodding them to make sure that these students are achieving. >> who are some of the opponents to the bill? >> there's a broad swath of opponents to the bill. both teachers unions oppose the bill and the american federation of teachers plus a whole host of civil rights

groups, including the education trust and the national educational counsel. and the u.s. chamber of congress, which is typically allied with republicans. > the white house has warned a veto on the vote. >> it waters it down, they think, especially for special education and english language learners. they do agree that no child left behind was perhaps too onerous but they see this as going too far in the other direction. >> what about outside groups? how much have they weighed in on the bill's rewrite? >> a number of outside groups, if you're thinking about groups for education reform, the naacp. n trust, the those groups have all had a very loud voice in opposing the

bill. there are some groups who do support the bill, including the american association of school administrators and the national school board association as well as americans for tax reform. >> the law expired in 2011 and was a signature achievement of former president george w. bush. how has this requirement rvived for six years without reoutryization? > for one thing, they rarely reauthorize on time so no child left behind is no exception there. there hasn't been that kind of big bipartisan coming together. still, a lot of folks agree that the no child left behind act is outdated and the administration has offered nearly 40 states at this point waivers from many of the

requirements. >> allison klein is co-author of k-12 laws. appreciate your time. >> thank you very much. >> house speaker john boehner spoke to reporters today about a variety of issues pending on capitol hill, including immigration. >> good morning, everyone. >> fairness is a basic tenant of our society. as it is bare minimum the american people should expect from their government but too often under this president they aren't seeing it. young people don't think it's fair that student loan rates doubled for no reason other than a bunch of democrats bickering with each other. there's no fairness when i.r.s. employees are getting promotions and bonuses after their ell -- illegally targeted conservative groups and it's not fair that in a stagnant economy the president continues

to push policy like a national energy tax and there's no fairness when big businesses are getting an exemption from the obamacare mandate but american families aren't. that's why the house this week passed two bills extending those protections, some basic fairness to all americans. our president said he would veto the bills and frankly, most democrats voted against them. i have to tell you, i was disappointed. how can a president say he's looking out for average americans when he threatens to veto the measures of basic fairness? i think it's appalling and the democrats are going to have to answer to their constituents for it to. keep the pressure on i've asked congressman tim griffin and congressman todd young, the sponsors of these bills this week to deliver our weekly republican address. now, this principle of fairness should extend to the issue of immigration as well.

americans expect a nation of laws that will enforce them, starting at the border. i think it's only fair. they expect that no one who broke our laws will get special treatment. people expect that there should be fairness for children who came to this country illegally but through no fault of their own. they see giving out -- no fairness in giving out most reen cards based on luck instead of on their skills. we need immigration reform. it's good for our country and fragely, it's the right thing to do and that's why the committees of the house will continue to do their work. i'm grateful for all our members who've worked on this issue on both sides of the aisle. not just members of the relevant committees but both republicans and democrats who've worked in the bipartisan fashion, including congressman

sam johnson and judge carter and mario belaert, all of whom have shown real leadership on this sup. a new deal on student loans to peg the rates on flexible changes in the treasury. what you know about this agreement, would the house be prepare told take it up? >> i haven't seen the details of it but clearly it follows the structure of the house bill. television a market-based reform, a market-based rates, similar to what the president called for and what the house has already passed so when we see the details, i'm hopeful that we'll be able to put this issue behind us. >> you were opposed to entering in direct talks with the president on specific issues. on immigration would you be willing to work with him

directly or have you or will be -- you be enlisting people to work with administration people to find a path forward on immigration reform? >> the house is going to do its job. and we're going to do this in a common sense, step-by-step way because the american people have kind of had it with 1,300-page bills that no one's read. i think moving forward in this way helps educate our members and the american people and gives us a practical way forward. >> trying to talk again about maybe a bigger budget -- >> i reeled about that. >> do you think it's possible, after you've gone through so many different attempts, do you think it's still possible? >> listen, our country has spent more than what we've brought in for 55 of the last

60 years. we have a problem. $17 trillion national debt. $700 billion budget deficit this year. we have to control spending and we need more economic growth that creates more jobs and higher wages. i think the way you do that is through reform of our entitlement programs to make sure they're going to be there for the tens of millions of people who count on them. secondly, we need a tax code that's fair, practical and more competitive. i plugged the members that are involved in the discussion. ome springs eternal. >> [inautomobile question]

>> i'm optimistic that we'll be able to put something forward on the food stamp issue. hopefully sooner rather than later. >> [inaudible] about the need to educate your members. how's that going? >> it's going pretty well. we had a great conversation last week. the more this issue is around, the more action there is in committee and the more information there is for members to put their hands on and frankly, the american people are engaged in this issue as well. it's not just organizations that are up here lobbying for immigration reform. a lot of individuals, constituents who have opinions on this and all this helps educate our members. never mind. go ahead. >> what obstacles -- >> i know better than to call on you, but i will. >> oh, go ahead. we're cool. [laughter] >> we'll see.

[laughter] >> what obstacles, if any, do you see in reconsidering the voting rights act and will that be done before midterm elections? >> i know that there are a group of members, mostly on the judiciary committee, who are having conversations about how to deal with the supreme court decision and -- but i don't have any progress or updates from terms of how they're doing. >> the 112th congress was historically unproductive -- >> that's total nonsense. listen, we made clear when we took over that we weren't going to be doing commemorative legislation on the floor. a lot of changes. in addition to that most americans think we have too many laws. what they want us to do is repeal more of those. so i reject the premise to the

question. we have a big job to do here. we need to stay focused in on those things that are most important to the american people and right now those things are the economy, jobs, immigration reform, farm bill, important things that the house is working on. >> talk about immigration step by step on the front end. are you willing out a comprehensive bill at every step, every stage of this process? >> we're going to continue to work in a common sense step by step way. how we proceed down the road, we're going to have to make these decisions. this is a tricky path to do this correctly and we can't have real immigration reform if we don't first secure our boarders. americans will not accept an overhaul of the immigration laws without some real evidence that the borders are secured and that we have the ability to

enforce our you are laws. remember, 40% of the people who are here that are undocumented, came here illegally. so there's a lot of work to be done and i want the house to do this in a deliberate reactive way. yes, ma'am? >> do you this the house passes before t of legislation -- [inaudible] >> we'll see but i would hope so i would hope so >> mr. speaker? >> yes, sir. >> at the top of your remarks i heard you to say that no one who broke the law should expect any special treatment. is that saying you are opposed then -- >> no, it says what i just said. all right. that's all it says. don't try to read everything under the sun into it. i said what i meant and i meant what i said. god bless you all.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we don't know enough about our first ladies. scratch the surface and you'll find lives that often surpass their husbands in drama and fortitude. our original series "first ladies, influence and image" examines the public and private lives of these women. watch the encore presentation weeknights in august at 9:00 p.m. eastern starting august 5 on c-span. on tomorrow morning's

"washington journal," we'll look at this week's top stories. first, we'll talk with stephen dinan of the "the washington times" then sam stein of "the huffington post." and tomorrow morning and this morning's "washington journal" a conversation on the military's effort to find soldiers missing in action. host: in our final segment this morning, we want to look at the issues of m.i.a.'s and the u.s. government's search for their remains. this is a story that appeared in the "washington post" recently. u.s. search for m.i.a.'s failing. internal study says inept management bars hunt for remains. we want to introduce you first to wanna summers. she is with politico.

she's a defense reporter with that publication. hat is this joint p.o.w.-mia accounting command? >> it's a hawaii based unit that is responsible for tracking down and figuring out where the roughly 83,000 veterans that are still missing from past american wars have ended up. it's a very scientific process, oftentimes dealing with forensic evidence in trying to find out where those people are. ften with other countries. issues about how they've gone about the process, how quickly they've done it and the kinks sort of along the way. host: how much does this cost the u.s. every year? guest: i don't have a specific figure. it's a very expensive and costly e. but also a very important one that is central

to the armed services and what the pentagon does. the pentagon tells us they believe this is one of their most important efforts. host: what are the complaints about how the military has gone about looking for these remains? guest: we saw it come all the in the press a week ago as showing this efforts is being hugely mismanaged. things that are basic, such as the j-pack. there's not a specific list saying who the people are they're working for. there's a fractured command structure. very basic organizational things are lacking is what we've heard and that set off alarms among lawmakers as well as here on capitol hill. host: how do they know where to look? world war ii, vietnam and north korea? what about iran and iraq? guest: most of the scrutiny is

from wars that are decades old. one detailed how teams would look at actual bones and remnants and analyze them in laboratories in order to figure out who these people are. quite a tedious and expensive process. rigorous to make sure you're identifying the right person when sometimes 20 or 30 years couch passed before -- when they were killed. host: you mentioned a government accountability office report, g.a.o. report. what did that say about this effort? guest: the most striking thing was that the pentagon had been asked to present a plan as to how it was going to double the real estate of avingses about identifications made by m.i.a. soldiers by 2019. this report hasn't even been

completed. the process has been said to be sluggish and inefficient. host: our other guest for this final segment of the day is lacey warrick. what's your organization? >> the national league of p.o.w.-m.i.a. families was founded in 190. it is an organization that represents family of those killed in action or not accounted for. host: how many people are in your accounting? uest: the vietnam war has 1, 645 people unaccounted for. those were originally missing in action, killed in action, remains not recovered or those listed as prment o.w.'s. world hat about korea or

war ii? guest: right now the world war ii numbers are roughly 73,000. but more than half of those are deep seawater losses, carrier ships that went down in the ocean. those individuals we know were killed in action, unfortunately no remains recovered. the korean war is roughly -- i believe it's 7,800 and more than half of those were killed in action, remains not recovered and then with the cold war there's a little more than 150. we have maybe a half a dozen or so from the 1980's currently. we have three contractors unaccounted for operation iraqi freedom and the one young man being held captive, we believe. host: when you look at this accounting command, what is your group's opinion of their

efforts? >> we are very supportive of j-pack. we do believe that overall the accounting process and the accounting community needs some reorganization. there are a lot of power plays that are going on but we fully support the work that they're doing. we believe that between j-pac and the laboratory and d.i.a.-stoney beach that the work that they're doing is important and that they're doing the best they can with the resources that they have right now. host: in your review of the g.a.o. report, is it accurate? guest: i haven't had a chance to review it completely. what i was able to read, i think there are a lot of merpts to what they're saying but i also think that there's a lot of extenuating circumstances that go along with the issues brought up in it.

host: in the "washington post" it says that part of this joint command's efforts have been dysfunctional to total failure, according to an internal study which was suppressed by military officials? guest: there was a study done by an individual who stole works from j-pac. the story detailled the fact hat several commanders had not wanted this study to see the light of day. obviously the associated press obtained that study. ost: 202 is the area code is you would like to dial in and talk about the p.o.w. issue or the military organization that is searching for p.o.w.-m.i.a.'s. we have our usual lines set up but we sit sit up our fourth line this morning for active nd retired military.

jauna summers, one of the things that we found in the research and how large the team is that goes out and does the searching. you mentioned it's very scientific. who's on the team? guest: it is a very large and broad team. this isn't just four or five individuals who are unaccounted for. it is a vast number from different wars and different territories. this is a very large team. there's a scientific component to it. there's obviously administrative staff and other uniformed persons. host: how do they determine where to look? guest: there's a lot of research that goes on before each case is acted upon. there's research done by the research and analysis group here in washington, d.c. further research is done by

r.n.a. people in j-pac. they have intelligence brought over that is collected and you find the sites and it's a process. you look at the history. you look at last known coordinates and you start to look at whether patterns, where -- weather patterns, where things might have gone and you're doing interviews of locals, interviews of soldiers who were with the men. interviews of people who might have seen something. fighter pilots that they were fighting against if that was the case. and you begin to correlate things. and unfortunately sometimes your first investigation, your first dig might not necessarily yield the results you were looking for. but i think the idea is if that didn't work the first time then you've x'd out that spot as a possibility so you find the next logical spot and go from

there. host: in no, sir korea, the jpac was snookered into digging up remains that the north koreans apparently had taken out of storage and planted. washington paid the north koreans hundreds of thousands of dollars to support these excavations. guest: i don't know enough about the particular incident to comment totally on it. i will say that the idea that we paid the government for the remains i think is inaccurate. there's a lot of cooperation that goes on within these recoveries and we do -- there is money and food aid that is given to the individuals who are working for the government for using those sites and for using their workers and for working with them. to say we simply paid for remains i think the inaccurate. with all of those remains that have been collected we have gone through and have begun identifying a number of them so

i think that that's an important factor to remember, that all of the remains that we were getting we are working to identify and as we are identifying those remains, that's removing people from those lists. it's finding answers for family members as we go on. it may not necessarily be in exactly the way we wanted to but we have steadily finding those answers for family members. ost: 202 is the area code. and our fourth line this morning is set aside for active and retired military. we're going to begin with a call from oliver. pardon me. in covington, georgia. democrat. hi, oliver. oliver, you're on the washington journal. you want to go ahead, please?

caller: do they usually have a record of those people overseas instead of staying at home? host: once again, please? caller: i have a question about people that decided to stay overseas after the war? host: thank you, sir. lacy, an accounting of those people at all? >> to be honest, i'm not sure. i've never seen a list that lists the individuals who decided to stay. i think the number would be very small. i would recommend you visit the defense personnel website. host: how big a deal is this for the pentagon? guest: this is a very big deal. there's no question that the information in this report is a ery scathing report. you've heard them say this is a

second program. to lacy's point, it's important to note that there is progress eing made. their names are getting back to he families. host: who is general mcqueeg? guest: he runs the organization so certainly his name is going to be in the spotlight. our sources tell us they'd like to see him testify about where this effort has gone off the rails. host: this is the joint p.o.w. accounting command. 83,000-plus americans still missing in action, according to jpac. the numbers that you gave, most of those were from world war

ii, the 73,000. most undiscoverable, correct? guest: at this time, yes. the technology doesn't allow us to go to the bottom of the atlantic or pacific oceans but i think it's important to understand that the general and his people there at jpac are working to get to as many as they can. host: operate an annual budget. 00 civilian personnel -- host: the next question comes from zack auburn, maine. back -- jack, good morning. caller: how's it going? on 9/11 basically the towers

fell faster than the rate of gravity. host: jack, we really appreciate your calling in but that's not a topic we are discussing right now. tom is retired military in north carolina. hi, tom. caller: good morning. host: we're listening, sir. caller: i'm what is called a cason survivor. we have an association that i only found out about two years ago when i got on a computer. i'm 100% disabled service connected. i am a bilateral amp team. st: could you tell us what a caisson survivor is? caller: there is an association of what we call survivors who endured that time frame. as i say, i only recently found

out about it because they don't advertise. i only found it by accident. i thought there were two survivors from my platoon. i found out there were approximately 20 because i had not considered the people who m -- flown out they show were there. the vietnamese people are very open people. that's something i discovered while i was there. the government ask very secretive. how much cooperation are we getting from the vietnamese government and so forth and do the teams that go in, do they talk to the local people? the ones that can really tell them? host: thank you, tom, for that information. your background. guest: thank you, tom, for your service. as far as the cooperation we

receive from vietnam, the government and the people, we get a great deal of cooperation from them. they certainly recognize the importance of this mission for us. it is the cornerstone of our relationship with vietnam. the accounting efforts and the work that we do became the bu blocks of our current economic and political relationship with vietnamese government. i'm not saying it's perfect. i'm not saying we don't have challenges with them but we do receive a lot of cooperation. as far as the vietnamese people, again, a lot of our information that goes into the investigations that later lead to recoveries are received from the iews that we do with local people who maven in the area, who may have seen something, former soldiers and village people. host: anything to add to that? guest: it's really important to note how important interviews

are to this process. to get the right investigation so these i.d.'s are done as quickly as possible. i completely agree with lacy's point. host: good morning. caller: thank you, c-span. my question regards the military's own short comes co--- short comings when it omes to searching for p.o.w. -- m. averment i.a. they have a two-star general in charge of the program. until we put a four-star general in charge we're not going to achieve success. politically, the carter administration, the clinton administration and the current obama administration, the deemphasis of the importance of our military contributes to the problem. thank you very much. guest: thank you so much for

your call. this is not a political issue. just yesterday as this study was coming out. you heard the senator from new hampshire call for the committee to hold hearings committee to get to the bottom of this. jackie spear, a california democrat in the house of representatives as well as other lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say this needs to go further. they want the inspector general of the pentagon to do a full investigation. so this is not being discounted in washington. host: if people want to read the report for themselves is it available online? guest: the full report, which i believe is 87 pages is available on the g.a.o.'s website. host: keith. i apologize. we're going on to richard in far tuna, california. richard? caller: hi.

first time caller. are the survivors of m.i.a. and p.o.w.'s? hello? host: we're listening, sir. please go ahead. caller: how is our government guffing them any support for their missing spouse and if not, why? nd thank you and i do like c-span. host: thank you, sir. guest: it's important to know that the families of those missing and unaccounted for do have a great deal of support from the government. they work with family members helping to provide information throughout the year. every year an annual meeting is held here in washington, d.c. all of the families from the vietnam war are invited to come and party and we invite the members of the accounting community to come in and

provide briefings for family members. they have case file reviews. throughout the year, every family member who has someone unaccounted for can contact their casualty officer and get information. once an identification is made. there is a great deal of effort and consideration put into how family members are brief. they have a casualty assistance officer who helps walk them through the process of memorial service and burial. so there is a great deal of effort that's put into making sure families are given the assistance they need. host: fred, huntsville, bill:? caller: yes, good morning. thanks to "washington journal" and c-span. i'm retired, both air force and army. i just hope they're stepping up their efforts in this prisoner

of war-m.i.a. work because when we start putting female soldiers further forward for combat, i can't and don't want to fathom what would happen if a female was camtureled. i worked next to some great females and it would bother me so much. it bothers me about the men, of course. host: and we'll leave his comments stand. has congress looked at this issue at all? guest: there's not been a lot of congressional action up until this point. but we're just a week or so out from recess. but i would expect after lawmakers return at the beginning of september to see hearings on this topic, yes. host: do you ever close a case and what is the threshold when a decision is made that there are not enough remains to find? guest: the mission of the accounting issue is the fullest

possible accounting. that means the man returned alive. the identifiable remains or convincing evidence as to why neither of those is possible, at which point family members are going to be given as much evidence as possible as to why that is the case. i think we have a very -- a decent success rate with identifying remains. for the vietnam war alone we've accounted for 1,001 individuals since 1973. i think that's a great number. and the threshold is when remains are found -- excuse me, when remains are found on a recovery mission, they are sent back to the central identification lab in hawaii and through their work and the work of the armed forces d.n.a. lab in dover, they do d.n.a. analysis. we have a massive d.n.a. data bank. family members of those who are unaccounted for and those are compared and once d.n.a.

results are made then that's generally the first threshold they look at. host: james from rockville, indiana. go ahead. caller: i was in vietnam in 1970 and a young man that lived just north of me was over there at the same time. he was special forces and he was killed just inside a -- laos. i have the coordinates of where he was killed and is laos perspectiving the united states government to go in and bring our heroes back from there or do we have to leave them lay? guest: we do a lot of work with the laos government. if you have information that you think might be useful as a veteran that you think might be useful in a recovery process, please feel free to come to our website. my contact is on there. send that information to the

office and i'll be happy to forward that on and they'll put that into the file and do further investigation. host: are their teams out right now? guest: i'm sure there are but i'm not sure to what scope. host: do you get tips in your office about where to search? guest: we do and any information provided to us by individuals, whether from here from the states or if we get reports or individuals in vietnam or cambodia who believe they've found human remains, we send those to the appropriate offices and those tips are followed up. host: are the families updated regularly or is the information kept from them until it's completely -- the investigation is finished? guest: i think that there is communication throughout the process, throughout the year, especially depending on how involved the family members are. you have to understand that

certain families are less involved than other families so when a family member contacts their casualty officer, they can get the most up to date information that they possibly can. each year during case file reviews, families who set up those reviews are given as much information as is available at the time. we do believe that that process is lacking some. that there are -- we would like to see the information chain move faster. and especially we feel that there's a great deal of information that is withheld from family members until the lab or other individuals who are in charge think that it's appropriate and our family members would much rather have as much information as possible while it's coming through. after, of course, it's been analyzed properly. but better to have that information than to wait a year and get it only once a year. host: juana?

guest: that's absolutely correct. that's one of the things these reports hit at is the chain of leadership. just how fast can a decision be made as to when the information is ready to go to families? host: jan in colorado springs. caller: thank you. i just don't know how you can account for every person lost, especially overseas and i just don't understand why we can't say after 65 or 45 years that that person is gone and maybe provide grief counseling. we have so many young soldiers today that need health care and who need jobs and help with their families. i just wonder if the millions that we're spending looking for these bones are really the best way to spend those millions? i come from a military family and i have respect for what people have done but i just don't understand, after 65 years, that people are still

looking for bones. i'm sorry. thank you. guest: jan, thank you for your call. i think it's important to understand that, again, you have to go back to what is the mission of the accounting community. it is the fullest possible accounting. we will never be able to recover the remains of every single individual who is on this list. but the idea is to find answers for family members and i believe it is a natural human need to want an answer, to want to know what happened to your family member in their last moment. i believe the vietnam war family has a great understanding of the fact that half of them will probably never receive remains but the knowledge of where their family member was when they fell, what circumstances were that led to that, i think -- i've seen a person find out a little bit of information that puts them one step closer and the change in their demeanor, the change in

their attitude is amazing. it's humbling. it's a humbling experience for me and so the idea is not to find remains for everyone but to at least find answers. guest: that speaks to ale are interesting point. it's a $48 to $50 million effort. i think there will be some discussion. you look forward to the days and weeks ahead how much money, how much time we should be devoting to this effort. the price tag of this program will programs get scrutiny going forward. host: how did you get involved with this? guest: i interned with the league in college. my father and grandfather were vietnam war veterans and i've always had a great deal of interest in veterans issues and when this position as coordinator opened up i felt like it was an unlt or me to -- for me to support our military

and military family members in a very unique way, to use my history and political background to do something that i could look back on and file -- feel i had made a small difference. but these family members are some of the most amazing people i've met and it's an honor and privilege to get to work with them every day. host: what happens to remains who have no surviving relatives? guest: the remains of those with no surviving relatives, e joint chief or secretary becomes the designated person in charge of-oing that burial and they're -- organizing that burial and they're given a great deal of care. there was one individual recently buried who i believe that was the case. a korean war veteran.

host: looking at these two reports, is there going to be any kind of a reaction fallout from the pentagon? guest: the pentagon has been so far fairly tight limbed. they concurred mostly the findings of the g.a.o. report. the general feeling is that yes, the pentagon must do better. i don't think there is an issue that the pentagon or congress is going to let go very easily. they've been saying for years this is one of the greatest responsibilities we have, to get the surviving members of the servicemen's families who are missing as much as information as possible. that is not working as well as it should. this is not going to just die out. host: tom in pinkney, michigan. please go ahead. caller: i'm a retired military. i'm calling on the democratic line because i couldn't get through.

i am a vietnam veteran and i witnessed when i was on active duty in vietnam where 20-something bodies were buried. these were men they personally disarmed because i was demo men -- man and i saw them put in body bags and an officer ordered them to be buried in a very unique and in a way that is very contradictive to the way marines do things but it was done all the same and for years i have tried relentlessly the y and get both families and the organization to help me get these bodies home and i've gotten into mat ises of bureaucracy. i'm told it cost a million and a half dollars to start a dig. when that's ridiculous because

these men were buried in body bags. know the approximate location now. host: tom, let's get an answer from lacy. guest: thank you, tom. i don't know exactly the situation that you're speaking of. if you would contact the league office i'd be happy to get some information from you. it's important to know that in southeast asia, especially vietnam, there are unique circumstances and one of those is the acidic soil in vietnam and because of this remains and evidence is quite literally eaten away over the years and so while there may have been body bags for those individuals, at this point it's unclear -- we would be unclear as to what necessarily we would be able to find. if upped like to contact us

if you like to contact us, i would be happy to speak with you and pass as much information along as i possibly can dpmo and jpac. host: guest: you in regular contact with the military? guest: we have a very good relationship with the accounting community. we fully support them and believe in the efforts they are making. it is important to remember that general mckeague very new to this command after starting october 1. he is working diligently and was at our annual meeting in june. he has a good handle on the issues that are internal. he also understands that there are some things that need to be worked on between the relationship of jpac and dpmo and i think he is doing everything he can to direct -- to address those. host: a two-star general -- we had a comment earlier about that. does a two-star general have impact? guest: i don't want to weigh in on that necessarily. lacy makes a good point as to

someone who has been in this job for less than a year, this is a sore point with a lot of complexity and a broad mission and a large number of people they are trying to find out about. my comment would be that perhaps it is shortsighted to write off someone with less than a year in the job. host: fayetteville, north carolina. caller: good morning, i would like to make a couple of comments and some of them are derogatory. i called in on what i thought was the military and the first thing i was asked is whether i was republican or democrat or independents. i'm an american, first off. i'm retired military. every -- anyone that has done anything to recover our american servicemen, i would like to give credit.