what he called middle-class economics. it didn't take long for people to realize that president's plan meant taxes middle class to pay for bigger government and pipe dream projects. nothing demonstrated this anti-middle class agenda more than the president's plan to attack education opportunity for middle-class families by taxing 529 savings accounts. now after families cried out against the president's plan, he dropped it, and i'm happy about that. . the president has chosen not to do harm but should work with the house to do positive good. my wife and i have two children, connor and megan. connor is in college today and megan is a senior about to enter college. when we found out the joy that we were to have children, we didn't have much great wealth, but we started putting away $50

a month. why? because we dreamt like every other american. it was no longer what you could become but what opportunities your children will have. education has been the great equalizer in this country. and there's no greater place to do that than allowing those that may not have great wealth, but have a great opportunity with their children a 529 account. but like anything, we should modernize it, because education changes just as technology changes. could you imagine today sending your child to college, but to tell them to learn without having a computer? isn't that a part of the education system, too. well, that's what this 529 account does. today, when we talk on the floor it's really about the future. it's about the future of every

single family from every walk of life. mr. speaker, i differ with the president on many issues, and i would say the majority of this house differs with the president that he would tax every parent or every grand parent who wanted to put away for a brighter future for their child or grandchild. luckily, he turned back. today's the chance to work with us, to work with us on a greater america with something that is stronger. and what that means today is, that we can all join so the 21st century can be stronger and keep the promise we made to every american that every generation will improve on the generation before them. and that's the opportunity of those 529 accounts. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentlelady from kansas reserves her time and the gentleman from illinois is recognized.

mr. davis: i have no further speakers. i'm prepared to close if you are. ms. jenkins: yes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i agree with my colleague from illinois, mr. roskam, that is indeed a bipartisan piece of legislation and it's good for higher education for those who are attempting to access it. i want to commend ms. jenkins and mr. kind for their leadership in developing it. i agree with its purpose. i urge its passage and yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i yield myself such time as i may consume. >> the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she likes to use. ms. jenkins: i thank my colleagues for participating in

this debate. if america is going to remain competitive, i can't imagine than maintaining the affordability of higher education. today's vote is a critical and simple step that congress should take to empower folks to save for higher education and ultimately make it more attainable for more hard-working americans. i hope the congress passes this legislation today with the broad support that it deserves so we can give american families an improved way to invest in their 529 college savings plans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 121, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to

improve 529 plans. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i'm opposed to it in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas seek recognition? ms. jenkins: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the clerk: mr. ted lieu moves to recommit with the following amendment. add at the end the following, parents right to know brokerage fees and impact. section 529 d of the internal revenue code is amended, one, by striking reports of each officer

and inserting the following reports. one, in general, each officer and two by adding at the end new paragraph. fees, such officer or employee shall make an annual report to the beneficiary of an account under such program a, disclosing the amount and type of fees with respect to such account b demonstrating the impact of such fees on the investment returns of such account over a 10-year and 20-year period and c disclosing the range of fees for investments available to accounts under such program. section 6, rates of return and low fees. section 529 of the internal revenue code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection, g, rates of return and low fees. each officer or employee having control of the qualified tuition

program shall take steps to ensure to the extent practiceable, high rates of return and low fees under such program. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. lieu: this is a final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will proceed to final passage as amended. let me thank my republican colleagues for introducing this bill. it makes changes to 529 plans and many of my siavcaed for years. i support 529 plans as do many of my constituents and helps people plan and pay for college and my wife and i invest in 529 plans. there is one amendment that will make it far better and that is disclosure. the motion to recommit would put in an amendment that says there

has to be a separate report that talks about the amount of fees and how much they are and how they impact the performance of the product over 10 to 20 years. prior to entering politics, i served as a corporate vice president at a financial services company and it's clear their foundation upon which wall street rests is disclosure and it is the social compact it has with main street and investors that they will describe a product, how it works the fees on that product and how it performs. by having a separate report that parents can see that talks about the fees on these products and how the fees impact the performance that will allow middle class families to gauge for themselves how investments are doing and which investments to select and does this make a difference?

yes, it does. let me give you an example. according to savingforcollege.com has this scenario, if the return is 7% d e cot ars bis pointananch40 basipots here's thitm. over the course of 18 years, the 529 plan charging the lower fees will save the investors $542. the underlying bill would allow 529 funds to be used to purchase a laptop. and right now every state has different rules for disclosure and have different fees. for example in my state of california, we have relatively low fees that range from $142 to fees. for $154 and then you have states like montana and arkansas which could range from 1100 over 10 years and that makes a huge difference to middle class families and i urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit that provides disclosure to middle-class

families so they can better understand their 529 plans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas seek recognition? ms. jenkins: i withdraw the reservation and claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the resser -- reservation is withdrawn. ms. jenkins: i rise in opposition to the motion to reexit. this motion would do the exact opposite what this legislation is trying to accomplish. this bill is attempting to simplify 529's that this motion would add unneeded complexity and would burden all saving families, states and plan administrators with more red tape. as a former state treasurer of kansas i believe i can offer unique insight from my experiences with 529 plan administration. this simply adds undue administrative burden and increases the costs which would leave less money for students to spend on their higher education

costs and seems to mandate increased rates of return, which congress should not be in the business of setting the risk of a personal investment. it increases administrative expenses and goes the opposite direction of the underlying bill. i urge my colleagues to defeat this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: i would like to request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. will record their votes by electronic votes. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20 this is a 15-minute which will be followed by five-minute votes and on

agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of reta any u othcledapon rathhoe proceesoroc crcl espr prohibit bthu. hf pntiv

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the --

the speaker: on this vote, the yeas are 176 and the nays are 245. the yeas are 176 and the nays

are 243. the motion is not adopted, and the house will be in order. members will please take a seat. the chair will not proceed until members take a seat. the chair wishes to reiterate the announcement of march 25, 2014 concerning floor practice. members should rededicate themselves to the core core

principles of proper parliamentary practice that are so essential in maintaining order here in the house. the cha bies mef es bear empsito m shoreain om trafficking in the well including when the presiding officer is addressing the house. members should wear appropriate attire during all sittings of the house however brief their appear evens on the floor -- appearance may be. you know who you are. members should refrain from engaging instill photography or audio or audio recording in the chamber. taking photographs detracts from the proceedings and presents a safety challenge. members who should speak on the floor should maintain recognition from the presiding

officer taking the time to do so in a proper form, including one-minutes. the proper form would be to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. members should take care to yield and take care in orderly fashion bearing in mind the official reporters of the debate cannot properly transcribe two members at the same time. members should address their remarks in debate to the presiding officer and not to others in the second person or some perceived viewing audience. members should not embellish in the offering of a motion, entry of a request or making of point of order or any statement of motive or other commentary and should be aware that such utterances could render the request, point of order or appeal untimely.

members should try to come to the floor within 15 minutes as prescribed by the first ringing of the bell. this has been an ongoing problem and members should make every attempt to be here within the prescribed 15 minutes. members should be advised that if they are in the chamber attempting to vote, the chair will try to accommodate them but as a point of courtesy to each of your colleagues, voting within the allotted time would help with maintenance of the institution. following these basic standards of practice will foster an atmosphere of mutual and institutional respect and ensure against personal confrontation amongst individual members, between members, and the presiding officer. it will also facilitate members' comprehension and participation in the business of the house. it will enable accurate transcriptions of the proceedings and in sum, will ensewer that the comity that elevates the spirited

deliberations above mere argument. the chair appreciates the members' attention to these matters. the -- without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas. ms. jenkins: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 401, the nays are 20. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 124 resolved that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the following committees, one, committee on natural resources, mrs. capps and mr. polis. two, committee on science, space, and technology, mr. takano and mr. foster. three committee on small

business, ms. clarke of new york. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the resolution is agreed to. the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members take your conversations off the floor. on both sides of the aisle. the gentleman from minnesota. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 5. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 121 and rule 18, the chair declare the house in the committee of

the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 5. the chair appoints the gentleman from new york, mr. collins, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to support state and local accountability for public education, protect state and local authority, inform parents of the performance of their children's schools and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from pln -- from minnesota, mr. kline and the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i rise in strong support of h.r. 5, the student success act and yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. kline: mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. members please take your conversation off the floor. the committee will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: this week we have an opportunity to advance bold reforms that will strengthen k-12 education for children across america. a great education can be the great equalizer. it can open doors to unlimited possibilities and provide students the tools they need to succeed in life. every child in every school deserves an excellent education. yet mr. chairman, we are failing to provide every child that opportunity. today, approximately one out of five students drop out of high school. and many who do graduate are going to college or entering the work forest with a sub-- the work force with a subpar education. the number of students proficient in reading and math is abysmal. the achievement gap is

appalling. parents have little to no options to rescue their children from failing schools. a broken education system has plagued families for decades. year after year, policymakers lament the problems and talk about solutions and once in a while a law is enacted that promises to improve our education system. unfortunately, past efforts have largely failed because they're based on the idea that washington knows what's best for children. we've doubled down on this approach repeatedly and it is not working. federal mandates dick kate how to gauge student achievement, thousand define qualified teachers, how to spend money at the state and local levels and how to improve underperforming schools. and now, thanks to the unprecedented overreach of the current administration, the department of education is dictating policies concerns teacher evaluations, academic standards and more. no one questions whether parents, teachers and local

education leaders have committed to their students yet there are some who question whether they are capable of making the best decisions for their students. success in school should be determined by those who teach inside our classrooms, by administrators who understand the challenges facing their communities, by parents who know better than anyone the needs of their children. if every child is going to receive a quality education, we need to place less faith in the secretary of education and more faith in parents, teachers, and state and local leaders. that's why i'm a proud sponsor of the student success act. by reducing the federal footprint restoring local control and empowering parents and education leaders, commonsense bill will move our country in a better direction. . this provides school districts more flexibility. the legislation eliminates dozens of ineffective or duplicative programs so each dollar makes a direct, meaningful and lasting impact

in classrooms. the bill strengthens accountability by replacing the current national scheme with state-led accountability systems. returning the states the responsibility to measure student performance and improve struggling schools. the student success act also ensures parents have the information they need to hold their schools accountable. it's their tax money, but more importantly, it's their children. and they deserve to know how their schools are performing. the bill reaffirms the choice is a powerful life line for families with children in failing schools by extending the magnet school program expanding access to high quality charter schools and allowing federal funds to follow low-income students to traditional public or public charter school of the parents' choice. finally, the student success act reins in the authority of the secretary of education. we must stop the secretary from unilaterally imposing his will on schools and this bill will do just that. perhaps, mr. chairman, that is

why the white house and powerful special interests are teaming up to defeat this legislation. they fear the bill will lead to less control in washington and more control in states and school districts. let me assure the american people that is precisely what this bill will do. i urge my colleagues to help all children regardless of background income or zip code, receive an excellent education by supporting the student success act and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in -- raise in strong opposition to this bill. a landmark civil rights law enacted under president lyndon b. johnson, as we approach the 50-year anniversary of its enactment, we cannot take lightly the goals and achievements over five decades.

it is by that we must measure our education system today. we all know too well that quality education is even more vital today than it was generations ago. and our rapidly changing economy, our nation's continued success depends on a well-educated work force. a competitive and educated work force strengthens the very social fabric of america. people with higher levels of education are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to need public assistance less likely to become a teen parent, less likely to get caught up in the criminal justice system. over the course of the history, we recognize that for many politically disconnected populations, access to equitable -- equitable access to an education has not been a reality. it is -- it was necessary for the federal government to fill

in the gaps of funding our public school systems. inequality was inevitable. when most school systems are funded by real estate taxes. and further by the virtue of the fact that in our democratic society we respond to political pressure. over 50 years congress has recognized that low-income students were not getting their fair share of the pie and that supplemental resources were absolutely necessary to ensure that all children had access to quality public education. as a result congress has a longstanding policy to target our limited federal funding to schools and students who get left behind in an unequal system. one of this bill's most troubling provisions, which strikes at the heart of the long history to target resources to our neediest students, is the so-called portability provision.

now present law gives greater weight to funding in areas of high concentration of poverty. under h.r. 5, portability, a state agency could use all of its title 1 funds to districts based solely on the percentage of poor children regardless of the concentration of poor people in a district. as a result much of the title 1 support, intended toward those areas of concentration of poverty, would be reallocated to those wealthier areas. in other words, the low-income areas would get less, the wealthy areas would get more. i ask if that's the solution i wonder what you think the problem was. but analysis from a number of organizations including the department of education, demonstrates the title 1 portability will take money from the poorest schools and school districts, and give more to affluent districts. this disproportionately affects students of color and this is just simply wrong.

data shows that h.r. 5 boo whoa provide the largest -- would provide the largest 33 school districts with the highest concentration of black and hispanic students over $3 billion less in federal funding than the president's budget over the next six years. furthermore the center for american progress found in its review of portability the districts with high concentration of poverty could lose an average of $85 pursuant to while the more affluent areas would gain more than $290 pursuant to. there's an overwhelming body of research -- per student. there's an overwhelming body of research that shows school districts with the highest poverty are mitigated in a certain way. this targets funding to schools where there's a greater concentration of poverty and this bill rolls the clock back and reverses that. to add insult to injury, h.r. 5 eliminates what's called maintenance of effort.

a requirement of e.s. -- esca that states maintain their effort and federal money will supplement what they're doing. as a result of this bill, states could use their education funds to fund tax cuts or other noneducation initiatives. thus turning esca into a glorified slush fund where politicians could -- where politics would drive funding allocations. we know who's going to lose when politics are at play. our children. there are other flaws with h.r. 5. this bill sets no standards for college or career readiness and allows students with disabilities to be taught with lesser standard stds. it limits our investment in education -- standards. it limits our investment insteadcation over the next six years because there's no adjustment for inflation. it block grants important programs, diluting the purpose and the outcome. taken as a whole, these policies will have a disproportion impact on students of color students

with disability and our english language learners. it's no wonder that business groups, labor groups, civil rights disabilities and education groups have all expressed deep concerns about this legislation. mr. speaker, i stand in strong opposition to h.r. 5, as it will turn the clock back on american public education. in its current form the bill abandons fundamental principles of equity and accountability in our education system. it eviscerates education funding, fails to support our educators and leaves our children ill-prepared for success in the classroom and beyond. i therefore urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. it is now my great pleasure to recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on early childhood elementary and secondary education, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita, for four minutes.

the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for four minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the chair and i thank the chairman for his great leadership on this bill and in the committee generally. i stand in strong support rise this afternoon because every student mr. chairman, every student deserves an effective teacher an engaging classroom and a quality education. that paves the path for a bright and prosperous future. that's what we all want. unfortunately, despite the best of intentions, the nation's current k-12 education law has failed to provide students this fundamental right. in fact, the law has only gotten in the way. far from taking us back to the past, this bill will take us to the future where we should have been for a while now in terms of education. so that we can maintain competitiveness with the rest of the world and win in the 21st century. no child left behind's onerous

requirements and the obama administration's waiver scheme and pet projects has created a one-size-fits-all scheme. as a result, too many young adults live high school today without basic knowledge of reading, math, science, they're ill-equipped to complete college and compete in the work force and consequently they're deprived of one of the best opportunities they have, to earn a lifetime of success. we shouldn't shackle any student to that kind of future. americans have settled for the status quo for if a too long and today we have an opportunity to chart the new course. the student success act departs from the top-down approach that has inefficiently and ineffectively governed education and restores that responsibility to its rightful stewards -- parents, teachers, state and local education leaders the local taxpayers. first, the bill gets the federal government out of the business of running our schools. it eliminates the dizzying maze of federal mandates that has dictated local decisions and

downsizes the bloated bureaucracy at the department of education that has focused on what washington wants rather than what students need. the whole theme of this bill is that we trust teachers, parents, local education officials and our local taxpayers much more than we would ever trust a federal bureaucrat. i find it funny that the other side, those that are against this bill actually cited the department of education in arguing what a bad bill this is. imagine a federal bureaucrat actually arguing to devolve its power back to its rightful owners. of course they're going to be for the status quo. they benefit from the status quo. the students do not. second, the bill empowers parents and education leaders with choice, transparency and flexibility. it ensures parents continue to have the information they need to hold schools accountable and helps more families escape underperforming schools by expanding alternative education options such as quality charter

schools. it also provides states the flexibility to develop their own systems for addressing school performance and the autonomy to use federal funds in the most efficient way. and this bill respects, mr. chair, that it's the people's property, it's their tax dollars. we shouldn't be forcing any kind of maintenance of effort requirement on states or local jurisdictions. it's their decision to decide what to do with their money. with the student success act, we have an opportunity to overcome the failed status quo of high stakes testing and federal waivers. we have the opportunity to redules the federal footprint in the nation's classrooms. we also have the opportunity to signal to people that we trust them to hold schools accountable for delivering a quality education to every child. as my good friend, former colleague, and fellow hoozier, governor mike pence, said before the committee earlier this month there's nothing that ails education that can't be fixed by giving parents more

choices and teachers more freedom to teach. and that's exactly what this bill does. this bill fosters an environment to accomplish that very thing. so i urge my colleagues to join me in replacing a broken law with much-needed commonsense education reforms and ask you to vote yes, yes, on the student success act. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from oregon a member of the committee on education and work force, ms. bonamici. the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized for one minute. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chair. thank you, mr. ranking member, for yielding. there is overwhelming bipartisan consensus that we need to replace no child left behind. and there's overwhelming bipartisan consensus that a rewrite of no child left behind should promote local flexibility and support schools not punish them. so i'm deeply disappointed that the house has not come together to produce a bipartisan bill.

despite a common goal and a long history of settinging aside differences -- setting aside differences to work together on this important legislation, this bill does not adequately support america's students. unfortunately the student success act shifts resources away from communities where poverty is most concentrated and freezes fundinging for america's most needy -- funding for america's most needing students at a time when public school enrollment is on the rise and more than half the students come from low-income families. h.r. 5 does not support a well-rounded education for all students. does not ensure college and career ready standards. for all students. and does not promote equal after-school programs and does not redo enough to reduce emphasis on high stakes tests. the original goal was audible, equity. and it deserves a full review by the house so we can implement thoughtful solutions that reflect the current needs in our schools. but this bill does not protect historically underserved students. i oppose this act and i ask my colleagues to do the same. we need a law that is serious about addressing the challenges

educators and students face today. thank you mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i now would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, who has been active in this bill mr. culberson. >> mr. -- the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. culberson: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to ask that the -- if i could for the chairman of the early childhood, elementary and secondary education committee engage in a colloquy with me concerning the importance of ensuring the federal government does not interfere with states' rights over public education. . mr. kline: i would be happy to engage in that colloquy. mr. culberson: mr. speaker, i believe there's no constitutional role for the federal government in education. however, i understand that it's a function of this act to accept it voluntarily by each state but i'm concerned that state

bureaucrats often accept the funds without any input from our local elected officials. i saw this in the texas house. i'm pleased that the gentleman from indiana and chairman kline worked with me to protect the 10th amendment and be sure that states knowingly accept the strings attached to these programs before receiving funding under this bill. i want to be clear that this provision simply ensures that locally affected officials and parents have the opportunity to stand up and voice concern or support for accepting federal funding at their state capital before unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat can accept that money and all the strings that come with them. i wanted to ask if the chairman concurs that this is the intent and result of the language you've included in the student success act. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me thank my colleague from texas for his leadership on this important issue. i understand and appreciate your concern about this federal role in education policy. that is why we were happy to include your amendment in the

underlying bill. it made the bill stronger and gave another tool to parents and local officials to protect their rights when it comes to educating our children this amendment in combination with other strong provisions to rein in the secretary including an absolute ban on his ability to force any state to accept any common core standards or other standards ensures the federal government cannot dictate what is taught in schools what assessments or given or what standards are used. this ensures that states willfully accept the limited requirements with these funds and reaffirms what decisions should be left to the states. i thank the gentleman for offering this and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. culberson: i want to thank you for protecting the 10th amendment rights of the states to control their school system and i affirming a parent's right to control their child's education. it means a far gater role for states and parents in a child's

education. i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield one minute to the gentleman from connecticut a member of the committee on education and work forest, mr. courtney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: i hate to throw cold water on the last colloquy but i think it's important to know as we debate this bill that never had the benefit of any public hearing is that the federal mandate for annual testing doesn't change in this law. what does change is the dedicated funding stream which congress had the decency to pass in 2002, is eliminated. you're maintaining a mandate and eliminating the funding to pay for that mandate for testing. what we're ending up with, for all the talk about reducing the federal footprint is that we're doubling down on the federal requirement that states have to

have annual testing in schools which every member in this chamber has heard about in loud protests over the last 13 years. what this shows is that when the process is broken and it was broken in this case, no committee, subcommittee meetings new york hearings, rushing it to the floor, on a hyper partisan basis not one single democratic amendment was accepted at the committee in markup, what you end up with is a deformed bill which should be defeated and i urge in the strongest terms possible, a no vote. let's do this the right way. i yield pack. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i thank the chair and yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: just to address the notion of what's done in secret and what's not done in secret and whether or not people have had a chance to weigh in on this legislation. as my friend knows, and i do thank him for not mentioning basketball by the way as my

friend knows, this bill has been, we've had multiple hearings other several years, it's been debated in committee, been debated on the floor of the house, it's much discussed and mump known. in contrast to the bill, the amendment, the substitute that my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle brought forward in committee 851 pages that nobody had seen outside the democrat caucus. so i believe this bill is well known and it is the right direction to move us forward into the future to make sure that all of our children receive the quality education they deserve and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you mr. chairman. i yield myself 30 seconds just to respond. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: to the idea that our substitute was produced. i apologize to the gentleman for having sprung the substitute on

him however, two legislative days after his bill was introduced, he scheduled a markup on the bill and so we produced a response to his bill in two legislative days and that's all the time we were allowed, we would have allowed hearings, we would have liked hearings on his bill and our bill. but that just wasn't to take place because of the rush to judgment. i yield now three minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, the ranking member of the early childhood, elementary, and secondary education subcommittee, ms. fudge. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. fudge: thank you very much, thank you, mr. chairman. i strongly oppose h.r. 5 the student success act. the elementary and secondary education act reaffirmed the supreme court decision's in brown vs. board of education that every child has the right to an equal educational opportunity. h.r. 5 undermines the laws -- the law's original intent,

turning back the clock on ex-- equity and accountability on american public education. as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of esca republicans have chosen to honor the anniversary by bringing a partisan bill to the house floor that tears apart the historic federal role in education. h.r. 5 should be known as the ensure students don't succeed act. the bill is a backward leap in our country's education system, not a forward one. every student in america has a right to a quality education. it is our job as members of congress to make sure that right is protected. something that h.r. 5 does not do. i refuse to fail our children and their families because our children deserve so much more than this legislation provides. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from virginia

reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very, very pleased now to yield to the chair of the subcommittee on higher education and work forest training, the distinguished gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx four minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. ms. foxx: i thank the chairman of the committee and i thank the chair for the recognition. mr. chairman, the current k-12 education system is failing our students and state and local attempts to make it better have been hampered by an enormous federal footprint. parents and education leaders have lost much of their decision making authority to washington bureaucrats and the secretary of education has bullied states into adopting the obama administration's pet projects. unsurprisingly, student achievement levels remain worrisome. just 36% of eighth grade students read at grade level and

only 35% are proficient in math. for far too long, our schools have been governed by a top-down approach that stymies state and local efforts to meet the unique needs of their student populations. we can't continue to make the same mistakes and expect better results. americans -- america's students deserve change. fortunately, this week, the house of representatives has an opportunity to chart a new course with student success act. legislation that reduces the federal footprint in the nation's classrooms and restores control to the people who know their students best. parents, teachers, and local leaders. the student success act gives washington -- gets washington out of the business of running schools protects state and local autonomy by prohibiting the secretary of education from coercing states into adopting common core or other common standards and assessment and by preventing the secretary from creating additional burdens on states and school districts. the bill reduces the size of the

federal bureaucracy. currently the department of education oversees more than 80 programs geared toward primary and secondary education. most of which are duplicative and fail to deliver adequate results for students. the bill eliminates over 65 of these programs and requires the secretary of education to reduce the department's work forest accordingly. the students success act repeals onerous one size fits all mandates that dictate accountability, teacher quality and local spending that have done more to tie up states and school districts in red tape than to support education efforts. it returns responsibility for classroom decisions to parents, teachers, administrators and education officials. the bill also provides states and school districts the funding flexibility to efficiently and effectively invest limited taxpayer dollars to boost student achievement by creating a local academic, flexible grant. it provides the public with

greater transparency and accountability over the development of new rules affecting k-12 students. education is a deeply personal issue. after years as secretary of education running schools through executive fiat, we understand that people are concerned about what a new law k-12 education law will do. that is why a number of key principles have guided our efforts to replace the law since we began the process more than four years ago resm deucing the federal footprint restoring local control and empowering parents and education leaders. those principles are reflected throughout the legislation including specific safeguards that protect the right of states to opt out of the law as well as the autonomy of homeschools, religious schools and private schools. organizations such as the council for american private education, homeschool legal defense association and committee on catholic education of u.s. conference of catholic bishops have expressed support for the student success act because they know it will keep

the federal government out of their business and preserve their cherished rights. a host of administration bureaucrats are attempting -- is attempting to defeat these much needed changes. they know each reform that returns fleblingsability and choice to parents and school boards represent a loss of pow for the d.c. it's time we put the interests of america's students above the desires of washington politicians. by reversing the top of down policies of recent decades -- the chair: the gentlelady is given an additional minute. ms. foxx: the student says sess act offers conservative solutions to repair broken education system. it would finally get washington out of the way and allow parents, teachers, and state and local education leaders the flexibility to provide every child in every school a high quality education. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield

one minute to the gentlewoman from california, a member of the committee on education and work forest, mrs. davis. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you ranking member scott. i have to ask the majority, when did local control come to mean spend federal dollars but ditch the federal oversight? during our markup last week, and i certainly heard today, member after member arguing how removing federal standards would help local leaders make tough decisions. this is absolutely backwards. for nine years, i served on the second largest school board in california, the sixth in the nation. and i distinctly remember every school in the district making a compelling case for ex-para-- extra resources which is why, frankly, we should be debating how to increase the size of the pie that goes to education rather than only arguing on how to cut it up.

i still remember particularly one board meeting agonizing over the decision to move money from one needy school to another. we had to cut our budget and we had to make a decision. in the end, the law and the safeguards around title 1 helped direct us to make sure the money went to the students that needed it most. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. davis: ultimately the direction in the law helps us balance competing needs i urge opposition to the bill. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. we are looking for additional speakers who may or may not make it. i know you have additional speakers,'8" reserve. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, a member of the committee on education and the work force, mr. takano. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute.

mr. takano: i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding time. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 5 also known as the student success act. having spent 24 years as a classroom teacher, i'm especially concerned about the title 1 funding mechanism in this legislation. we have seen time and time again that block grants often redirect funding away from intended populations and are a prelude to further cutsism also oppose the republican bill's portability provision which betrays the original intent of the elementary and secondary education act. esca is meant to promote equitable opportunity and education for all and to help raise the academic achievement of low income children. this legislation will do the opposite. finally irk objects to the utter lack of federal accountability in h.r. 5. while i oppose the current test-driven, high stakes accountability system, i want the right accountability system

not no accountability system. mr. speaker, this legislation goes too far. it cuts too deep and takes too many steps backwards i oppose h.r. 5 and call on my colleagues to do the same. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. . mr. kline: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i just wanted to address this issue of grants and block grants and so forth, we're starting to hear a little bit about. i've been hearing for years, as i talk to superintendents in minnesota and around the country their frustration with the maze of federal programs, 80 some federal programs, each with a soda straw of funding and requirements for action and reporting. and they told me again and again they'd say, i've got money here and don't need it there.

i need money here and i can't move that money. i don't have the flexibility to move that money. i need to be able to put the resources where my students need it. and so by eliminating 65 of those soda straws of individual controls and giving that flexibility to superintendents, we allow the money to be spent where it's needed the most. i think that's one of the great strength of this bill and -- strengths of this bill and it's one of the reasons why the american association of school superintendents does support this legislation. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin, a member of the committee on education and work force mr. pocan, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin voiced for one minute. mr. pocan: thank you, ranking member scott. mr. speaker, this bill breaks

the promise made 50 years ago to help all kids get a good quality public education and to recognize the challenges faced by kids living in poverty. when talking about the problems with this republican bill, one wonders where to start. is it the tearing apart of public education that comes in the form of dismantling title 1 funding? or the fact that the portability scheme is a slip arery slope -- slippery slope turning our public school system into one big taxpayer funded voucher program with public dollars spent to private schools? or the fact that republicans have failed to dreals the need for early ed -- address the need for early education or the maintenance of efforts for education? or that this bill diminishes the focus on professional development for teachers or the clear protections for collective bargaining agreements that are already a part of state laws? or that this bill provides insufficient funding, lower than what the title 1 authorization for last year was authorized under the current law? this bill doesn't provide real student success mr. speaker.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield the gentlewoman from massachusetts ms. clark, a member of the committee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from -- the chair: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. ms. clark: i thank the gentleman for virginia for yielding. mr. chairman, the elementary and secondary education act was passed 50 years ago to embody the promise that education is a right, not a privilege. we are supposed to be guardians of that promise. not the architects of its demise. this re-authorization was an opportunity for congress to delve in and debate the most pressing issues facing our schools. sadly, the republican majority chose to introduce a partisan bill behind closed doors without a single public

hearing. now we have a bill that reflects that lack of inclusion, takes hundreds of millions of dollars from our most vulnerable children and weakens the safeguards that govern taxpayer money. when i served on my local school committee, a tough economy meant some really difficult decisions. not everyone was happy, but we listened. we listened to teachers administrators, parents, students, experts and fiscal watchdogs. and we were guided by one simple principle -- what's best for our students? it's a shame congress couldn't find the will to do the same. i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 5. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentlewoman from north carolina, a former college professor and now a member of the committee on education and work force, ms. adams, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. adams: thank you, ranking

member scott. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 5. two weeks ago our committee came together expecting to seriously consider this bill, but instead republicans said no. no to moving beyond the status quo, no to investing in the futures of our kids, no to supportinging our teachers and principals, and no to ensuring the success of our neediest students. guess what? you said yes to taking money from our poor students like robin hood in reverse, yes to erasing the gains we've made over the past 50 years and yes to denying student success. this bill ignores the obvious needs of our students, turns its back on some of our most vulnerable. i hope we're not fooled by the name of the bill. student success is a failure. it's clearly -- it clearly sets up our students to fail. h.r. 5 fails on all accounts. it fails our neediest students, it fails to invest in our teachers and our principals. it fails to prepare students for college and careers. this bill deserves an f. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina yields. the gentleman from virginia

reserves. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, could you advise how much time is available on both sides. the chair: the gentleman has 16 minutes remaining. 15 minutes, excuse me. mr. scott: and the gentleman from minnesota? the chair: 13 minutes. mr. scott: thank you. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from rhode island, a former mayor, mr. cicilline, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it's our responsibility to provide america's young people with every opportunity to obtain a world class education in the best possible environment so they can compete in an increasingly global economy. that's why it's critical that we re-authorize esca the right way. schools and educators deserve certainty, continuity and direct -- grex. based on new research -- direction. based on research. and students deserve the best education we can provide. but h.r. 5 is not the right way to do it. h.r. 5 would freeze funding at

current levels for six years, representing over $800 million in cuts compared to pre-sequester funding. by funding programs with block grants and introducing title 1 portability this fails to support greater acheekment of low-income students students of color students with disabilities and english language learners. this fails students in so many ways. we should be working together to ensu ae-thiz cprestu hiemt,uprttehe and principals and provides high-quality education for all students. this bill does not accomplish this and i urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee on labor, health, human services and education, ms. delauro, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from

connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: thank you. upon signing the original elementary and secondary education act, president johnson described education as quote, the only valid passport from poverty. this bill threatens to tear up that passport. it caps federal education funding at 2015 levels, levels which are already woefully inadequate after years of drastic cuts. makes no provisions for inflation. let alone growing need for federal education programs. the bill allows states to direct federal dollars away from schools in districts with the greatest poverty. it permits states to reduce education funding with no accountability. it allows schools in wealthier neighborhoods to use title 1 funding without having to target funds to the students with the greatest needs. it is a blatant betrayal of the esca's fundamental purpose which is to level the playing field for low-income kids. it weakens or eliminates many successful programs, 21st century community learning

center initiative, provides quality after-school, summer school programs for disadvantaged children. mr. speaker, it used to be that hard work in school and on the job was the surest ticket to the middle class. today that compact is broken. millions of hardworking families do not earn enough to make ends meet. let alone move up in the world. the cuts proposed in this bill would make matters even worse. kids from poor neighborhoods are already being neglected. while those from wealthy areas get an ever-increasing slice of the pie. these disparities reverberate throughout their lives, they create an incorrespondencing -- increasingly divided, unequal society. let me put it simply. without broad access to quality education, there is no future for the middle class. with this legislation, the majority are saying to america's low-income kids, you are on your own. mr. speaker, that is not who we are. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired or yields. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. now i'm very pleased to yield to a new member of the committee the gentleman from michigan, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 5, the student success act. because our system -- education system is failing. where i come from we call trying to do things over and over again and expectinging a different outcome in-- expecting a different outcome insanity. i believe our system is broken to the extent that it's a moral imperative for congress at this point to step up and act. our students, our parents, our teachers should not have to settle for a failing system. before congress i worked in the private sector and also had an opportunity to speak -- excuse me, to work in state

government, including the opportunity to serve as the majority leader of the michigan senate. at that time i saw firsthand how much more effective we can be at the state level to use state resources and control where they're going than to have the federal government come in, step in and use and expect the state to spend it in a certain way. mr. bishop: this system of top-down, it does not help the stateses, it puts us -- states, it puts us in a bad position. had i had the opportunity, i would have come here in support of the cause as well because i believe it's the right thing to do. i believe it's high time we defend the 10th amendment and rein back the federal government's role, especially in our children's education. local teachers and parents know that our children are -- know our childrenen better than the department of education -- children better than the department of education in washington, d.c. ever could. and the result is that our system is broken and that

becomes clearer and clearer every day. i just want to mention a couple of statistics that i find alarming. but instructive. first of all, 35% of our fourth graders are reading at a proficient level. only 26% of our high school seniors are proficient in math. just a couple examples that i mentioned, those examples are unacceptable. mr. kline: i yield an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. bishop: thank you. the student success act gives back authority to our states and expands opportunities to our children -- so our children can get the best education opportunity possible. that's what they deserve and that's why i was sent to washington, d.c., to support. this bill is also critical in ensuring the federal government cannot force a failed program like common corps, on the states. -- common core, on the states. it's also important to make sure we protect the rights of our home schoolers and our private schools, that's exactly what this bill does.

mr. speaker, we must reduce the federal government's footprint in our children's classrooms because it's making a mess of the education system. we are long overdue for change and i believe the student success act will move our nation in the right direction. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chairman, because this bill limits the amount of funding available, it moves money from low-income areas to wealthy areas eliminates targeted funds for english learners and those with disabilities it fails to set meaningful standards a lot of organizations oppose the legislation, including business organizations, child advocacy groups, civil rights groups organizations supporting those with disabilities and health groups, including the congressional track caucus, the

advocacy institute, the after-school alliance, the american association of people with disabilities, the american association of university women, the american fedcation of -- federation of teachers, the american foundation for the blind the association of university centers on disabilities autism national committee autistic self-advocacy network, the center for american progress the center for law and social policy the children's defense fund, the committee for education funding, the consortium of citizens with disabilities, the council on great city schools, the council of parent attorneys and advocates incorporated, democrats for education reform disabilities rights education defense fund, easter seals, education post, education law center, first focus campaign for children, gay, lesbian and straight education network, human rights campaign, the

center for mental health law, lawyers committee for civil rights under law, leading educators, the league for united latin american citizens, the mexican american legal defense on education fund, the naacp, the naacp legal defense on education fund, the national association of school psychologists national center for learning disabilities, the national council on independent living, national council on teacher quality, the national center on time and learning, national congress of american indians national council of loraza, the national coalition for public education, the national disability rights network, national down syndrome congress, the national education association, the national urban league, the national women's law center, parents for each and every child, poverty and race research action council, public advocates incorporated, stand

for children southeast asia resource action center, teacher plus, new teacher project, education trust, united negro college fund, the leadership conference on civil and human rights and the u.s. chamber of commerce all in opposition to this legislation. . i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you mr. chairman, we are expecting another speaker, en route so i'd like to -- do you have other speakers? yes, you do i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves, the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you. mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from alabama ms. sewell. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sewell: thank you, mr. speaker. i often don't come to the floor to speak, but i felt compelled on this particular bill, h.r. 5

to talk about it. why? because i represent a district that has 90% of the public schoolchildren live and receive reduced or free lunch. and it's important for me to just state for the record that i think that a bill that takes away funding from public schools and targeted funding for low-income and poverty students would be an abomination. this bill is here because the work of lyndon johnson 50 years ago. it was a civil rights bill, frankly. why? it was an acknowledgment that socially disadvantaged children needed additional help. somewhere along the line, mr. speaker we've lost, as a nation, the notion of our children. it's always my child. not our children. until the person who lives in high income sees --

mr. scott: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. sewell: until the parents of more affluent children see that their lives are intricately linked to children that are poor we as a nation will never be the beloved community that so many civil rights leaders fought and died for. so i want to thank the gentleman from virginia for the opportunity to speak on this underlying bill and i want to urge my colleagues to vote against h.r. 5. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the committee the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i also want to thank the gentleman from minnesota for his work on this bill. very important bill.

certainly very applicable to what is going on in our country right now. federal intervention in our nation's classrooms is at an all-time high and the obama administration continues to believe that they think they know what is best for our children. however, despite continued intrusion into our children's classrooms, student achievement remains stagnant. out of 34 countries students in the u.s. ranked 30th and 27th in science and math respectively. it's clear our education system is not adequately serving our children and it's not going to be fixed by washington bureaucrats. our education system can only be fixed by parents, teachers, aunts, uncles coaches, community leaders. the people who actually know what is best for our nation's children. that's why i'm supporting h.r. 5. i'm supporting this bill to put some refraints on -- restraints on the administration, rein in the department of education and put key os our children's

education and future back in local control where it belongs. it repeals out of touch teacher qualification programs and allows state and local officials to determine who is qualified to coach their children. it also eliminates 65 programs and creates a brand program with greater flexibility for school districts. we all know that children learn differently and at their own pace and without this bill, the secretary of education could prohibit funds from being sent to states unless they adopt certain one size fits all standards like common core. i will be the first one to say that additional reforms are -- to our education system are feeded. no this is not the silver bullet. but it is a great start. and it is a great bill. mr. speaker, i support this bill and urge all my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota

reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i want to state for the record, mr. chairman that graduation rates are up in the last, since no child left behind was passed, black and latino children are doing better. the -- and so it has been working but we need to continue to improve. mr. chairman, i'd like to read the statement of administration policy that speaks to the administration position on h.r. 5. the statement of policy goes as follows. administration strongly opposes h.r. 5 the student success act as approved by the house committee on education and the work forest. -- work force. congress must act in a bipartisan way to reform elementary and secondary act of 1965. it helps by giving them

flexibility from no child left behind mandates. however it represents a step backwards in helping the state's families prepare for children's future. it -- part of the legislation is to ensure that all -- it fails to maintain the core expectation that states and school districts will take serious sustained and targeted actions when necessary to remedy achievement gaps and reform persistently low-performing schools. h.r. 5 fails to identify opportunity dwaps and remedy inequities and access to resources and support students' needs to succeed such as challenging academic courses, excellent teachers and principals, after school enrichment or expanded learning time and other academic and

nonacademic supports, rather than investing in more schools, h.r. 5 would allow states to divert education funding away from schools and students who need it the most through the so-called portability provision. the bill's caps on federal education spending would lock in recent budget cuts for the rest of the decade when it allow funds to be used for education to be used for other purposes such as spending on sports stadiums or tax cut for the wealthy. h.r. 5 fails to make critical investments for the nation's students including high quality preschool for america's students and investment and innovative solutions for the public education system. if the administration agrees on the need for high quality statewide annual testing as required in h.r. 5 so parents and teachers know how children and schools are doing from year to year and allow for consistent measurement of school and student performance across the state. however this bill would -- this

bill should do more to reduce redundant and unnecessary testing such as asking states to limit the amount of time spent on standardized testing and require notification when it's consuming too much classroom learning time. the administration opposes h.r. 5 in its current form for all these reasons but particularly because it would deny federal funds to the classrooms that need it the most and fails to assure parents that policymakers and educators will take action when students are not learning. the president were presented with h.r. 5, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. i yield back. mr. kline: i understand the gentleman yields back? mr. scott: no, i reserve. mr. kline: ok mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee on work

forest protection -- work force protections, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. since no child left behind was put in place the federal government has dictated how states and school districts spend money, gauge student learning and school performance and hire classroom teachers and frank -- and frankly mr. speaker, it isn't working. washington bureaucrats new york matter how well meaning they are, will never have the same personal understanding of the diverse and special and unique needs of students and teachers, administrators parents, who spend time with them. mr. speaker, i stand here today because i have to speak for aaron and moses. aaron is -- for erin and moses. erin is my daughter-in-law and the mother of my four grandchildren.

moses was a student that tested her teaching ability and her passion for teaching. erin came to teach in a classroom, fourth and fifth grade classroom, special needs students in cicero illinois. freshly minted out of her educational training, masters program, she came in with a passion for teaching. she came in because she was sent in that classroom as a full-time continuing substitute because the teacher of that classroom had gotten up one day walked out of the classroom and never came back. erin was given the opportunity of a lifetime, to teach these students and she began to invest her life into those students, especially one young student, fourth grader, by the name of moses. moses came from a difficult situation. moses at that time new york fourth grade, wasn't even fully potty trained. but erin invested her time and

talent and frankly her treasure into the life of that student as well as the others. had wonderful outcomes in working with the parent in the home as well as with moses in the classroom. the next year, erin was given the opportunity to be a full-time teacher. not a sub anymore. and i'll never forget the day when she came to me and said dad -- she had tears in her eyes he, said i'm not sure i'm cut out for teaching. i said why? you had an amazing impact for the six months of time you spent in that same classroom last year. she said now all i'm doing is filling out paperwork, for illinois for chicago and for the federal government. she ultimately had our twin grandsons and went from the classroom to the home. but there will be a day that comes when those four kids are at the stage and she can go back to the classroom.

i want erin to go back and have the ability to teach, to love on those kids, to direct them and work with the parents, not spend time filling out bureaucratic forms. that's why i support the student success act. it replaces federal control with state and local control. the bill allows states to establish -- the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman for one minute. mr. walberg: to establish and implement their own standards and assessments, allows states to development their own accountability plans by eliminating federally prescribed school improvement and turnaround interventions. it provides state and local school districts flexibility. mr. speaker, that's what we're speaking for. that's for the erins and moses of the world and educational opportunities that should lead us to the future in great ways for this country, to lead the world, this is what we're talking about, mr. speaker. the students success act places control back in the hands of

education's rightful stewards, the teachers. the administration. the -- the administrators. the states, the parents and ultimately the students. let's pass this bill and i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. . mr. scott: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i just wanted to end -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the consortium of citizens with disabilities says the students with success act creates incentives to take students with disabilities unchecked, off track from having access and achieving a regular high school

dip plomea. less than 1% of all students have a significant disability which corresponds to 10% of students with disabilities. without this limitation, we fear schools may inappropriately assign schools to alternative assessments. that assignment to these alternative assessments may lead to reduced access to general curriculum and limit a student's access to earn a regular diploma. that's why the disability groups oppose the legislation. i just want to end with a reminder, this limits the funding and transfers money from low-income areas to high-income areas and that's not just urban areas. there are 2,400 low-income rural districts that will will lose over 150 -- $150 million, 15% of

their allocation under the current law, they will lose in rural areas. the legislation eliminates targeting for english learners and those with disabilities and it fails to set meaningful standards and for those standards we should join the administration in opposing h.r. 5. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: h the chair: the chair recognizes the the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i yield myself the balance of our time. as is always the case, we hear a lot of things, some of them are actually factual some of them are not. there is some things that come along with this. we did hear some things from both sides of the aisle that are worth underscoring. one of the other speakers talked about how schools and states need continuity, i think was his

word, predictability. and that's what we do not have now. right now, this country is operating under the law of the land, which is no child left behind. and under a big convoluted scheme of contemporary conditional waivers which provide no continuity, no predictability. and that's why we are hearing on both sides of the aisle from coast-to-coast and off the coast, as a matter of fact, that we need to replace no child left behind. and we believe i believe as we replace no child left behind, that we need to put responsibility in the hands of parents and teachers and school boards and states and not in the hands of washington, d.c. i think that it's not fair to say

that there's not a problem. we heard from the ranking member that graduation rates had gone up. on the other hand, they hadn't gone up much. and we're still in the position where 26% of high school students are -- 26% high school seniors are not pro efficient and only 38 -- only 26% are pro efficient in math 74% -- maybe i need to have a little math -- only 38% of those high school seniors can read at grade level. we have a problem and we need to address that problem. we heard that a lot of talk about how -- where title 1 funds go and portability of public schools, and it's a question i understand and we believe it's

fair if you are eligible for title 1 funds you ought to get those funds. there's a disagreement. i think that the children, if they're eligible, if they're in poverty, that they ought to get their share of title 1 funds. one of the things we didn't talk much about today as we talk about the problems out there, we know that in some areas of the country, you have children trapped in absolutely failing schools, where less than half of the kids that graduate. and those who graduate are nowhere near ready to go to college or go to work. we have seen across the state and across the country and in most states, charter schools public charter schools popping up. and giving parents hope, giving them a chance to get those kids out of failing schools. i said the other day in the rules committee, because it was so moving to me, i went to a

charter school in north minneapolis, 430 kids in that school, their parents are delighted with the education they're getting now and thrilled to have gotten their kids out of failing schools and when i asked the principal and founder of the school if she could take more kids she said no, this is the right size for this school. they would like to replicate this school and that's what this bill allows and how successful is it? there are 1,000 kids 1,000 kids on the witnessing list to get into that charter schools because parents want to get out of failing schools. this bill allows this to happen. it comes down to, who do you trust? parents or local governments? we want to put the control in the hands of parents, local school boards and states. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back. the chair: pursuant to the rule the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the committee of the whole house having had under consideration h.r. 5 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: permission to address the house for one minute . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: this week is national eating disorders week. this time it's time to educate parents and children about the causes and serious health conditions and consequences of eating disorders. eating disorders affects more than 15 million americans and have disproportionate impacts on teens and young adults. beyond genetic links factors such as consistent exposure to misleading advertising that distorts one own's body image

can go to eating disorders. we need to spread awareness and promote healthy body images. along with a bipartisan coalition, we have urged the federal trade commission to uphold their duty to protect the american consumer by working with health professionals and the advertising industry to promote fair and responsible advertisements, especially for products geared towards children and teens. if you suspect your child has an eating disorder, please seek professional help. there are many resources available to families. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minute speeches? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. wilson of

florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from north dakota, mr. cramer is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. cramer: i would ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of today's special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i appreciate so much this opportunity that we have this evening to inform and to educate my colleagues in the house and fellow members of congress and the american people through c-span about the importance of local radio and

television broadcasters. they are important not only to our country -- i want to talk about how important they are to our communities, the communities we live in, the communities they live in and the communities they work in. for decades for decades, these broadcasters have been the first ones to respond to disasters and emergencies. they saved numerous lives to be on the scene and to be able broadcast widely and help communities pick up the pieces after a natural disaster or manmade disasters. the broadcasters have played a vital role in the communities. i have been blessed not only through public service but in other positions to work with local broadcasters hosting telethons to find cures for diseases like muscular dystrophy and cancer and many other

diseases that our communities tackled together. we need to remember that these radio and television stations they are not monolithic but run and managed by our friends, the people that we see every day. today is a big day and appropriate day to celebrate the role of america's broadcasters to our communities, because today hundreds of members of congress were able to meet with their local television and radio station personalities and managers and representatives. today nearly 600 broadcasters came to capitol hill to tell their story of public service and to remind their representatives of their role. now you may not know that these broadcasters are required by statute to serve the public interest. and when i hear about the stories they cover, when i see the types of stories they cover, the lives they touch, the service that they are providing

i'm hartened to know that we have a vibrant, thriving system of local broadcasting in this country. unlike many other countries around the world where national and regional news is available to their citizens, here in the united states, in places like north dakota, texas, arkansas and others, we have a system of local radio and tv stations. folks living in the same community are bound together by weather events, sporting events news of the day, human interests, all provided by an accurate local source. i know in north dakota we have seen weather emergencies where information from our local broadcasters was all that was available -- i myself with my family, several years ago, 1984, spent all night -- this is before cell phones, spent all night in a car in a blizzard that came upon north dakota

suddenly. just off of the interstate. the only communication we had was through a radio which won a peabody award that broadcasted to us. we will hear a number of stories from members of congress, across the country, also touched by their tv and local radio stations. i thank them for sharing their stotion about their local stations and i'll share some of mine. but i want to start off by calling on someone who knows a fair bit about broadcasting the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford. mr. crawford: i appreciate the opportunity and this is an honor to be able to stand up and advocate on behalf of our broadcasters who are not only my constituents or your constituents, but they are my colleagues because i'm a former broadcaster and i know firsthand the importance of broadcasting, as you indicated to local and

national communities and you talked about weather occurances. last week, my district and most of arkansas was blanketted with ice. and i can tell you with certainty a good number of my constituents were tuned into their local radio stations, local television stations to hear about school closures and to hear about road conditions and to hear about other community closures and shelters that might be available, and any number of things that are necessary in times of weather that could put them in a position of distress. so it's very, very important. . in my district alone, there are 20 local television stations 233 local radio stations in the state of arkansas, that's statewide, not districtwide. these broadcasters contribute $9.83 billion to our state's g.d.p. and they provided

roughly 22,000 jobs in the state of arkansas. beyond arkansas, entire country, local broadcasters account for 2.65 million jobs in the united states and they provide, get this $1.24 trillion to our g.d.p. as we talked about they provide a variety of services to communities that they support. one of the things that i didn't mention, as a broadcaster i was a farm broadcaster so you can appreciate this being from north dakota. those farmers rely on those market reports, weather reports, bug reports, disease reports, any number of things, information that's relevant to the production of agriculture that they rely on. and so that was one of the things that helped launch my career and i was able to start a farm news network, operated -- started with four stations. it's now up to 53 in a five-state arkansas and all of that is very specific to the

local community and what's grown and raised in those communities, and so farmers have come to rely on that. i'm sure it's the same in your home state of north dakota. but i think the point that we're trying to make here is that every community is unique, every community has their own needs and no one knows those needs better than the brauferts who serve those communities. -- broadcasters who serve those communities. i say as congress it's our duty to support broadcasters who do so much for their regions and communities and i appreciate you taking the time to make this -- make this hour happen. mr. cramer: if the gentleman wouldn't mind, i'd like to ask a question. i know we didn't rehearse this. in this era of all kinds of new information, technologies availability and ways of getting information, streaming and cell phones and smartphones and the like, maybe you could just share a minute or two about why it's still important that -- what role the broadcaster free, over-the-air broadcast through the spectrum

why that matters in this era of new i.t.? >> well, you touched on it there, it's free. over the air, they can access it, they don't need any kind of special tool except a radio. everybody has a radio in their car, tractor, in their truck, in the office, whatever. when everything else fails, when you can't get your cell signal the radio is reliable. from the farmer's perspective, which i obviously have an interest in, they rely heavily on that and there's an element of trust. their local broadcaster is usually a trusted source of information. and so that's why it's so important and why they rely so heavily on their local broadcaster. whether that be their 6:00 news. i've been a news anchor on our local television station. and folks do become accustomed to hearing from you and they trust that. but here's the other thing that's interesting about broadcasters. they're integrated new media in conjunction with their

broadcasting. so it's sort of -- it sort of supplements what their core mission is, is to provide that service to the community over the airwaves but the very good thing about broadcasters is they're not a static business model, they're developing new technology. they're integrating new technology and it all works together with the core mission being to serve their communities. and i think you're seeing that with -- you see fundraising efforts for make a wish foundation on a local radio station. that's important and radio stations television stations are innovative in community support activities. amber alerts, not only are they broadcasting those amber alerts but they're using texts and social media to supplement that and really help enhance their broadcasting efforts too. so there's a lot of these things you can't get along without, i think, without our public broadcasters our local community broadcasters, television and radio, who operate on the airwaves. mr. cramer: great points.

thank you so much for participating. next, mr. speaker, if i could i'd like to yield three minutes or as much time as he needs to the gentleman from texas mr. poe. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for having this special order. let me bring an additional perspective to the importance of local broadcasters -- tv radio. i live down on the gulf coast. we call where i live in my district hurricane alley. just since i've been in congress hurricane katrina, hurricane rita, hurricane humbert, hurricane ike and hurricane gustav have all hit my congressional district. now, some blame me. that's not my fault. they -- here they come, all of these hurricanes. and we're down on the gulf coast and as soon as the

hurricanes come through, guess what, there goes the power, electricity besides all of the flooding, the damage, the wind, all of this happens when hurricane season comes upon us in the summer. and so the local folks to get information they -- if they're still at home, they're watching local tv. many are not because they have to leave because of rising water and wind damage. when hurricane ike came into galveston, texas it went across the island and then when the wind shifted, it came back across the island but that saltwater went across and came back. tremendous damage in galveston, texas. and the only thing the people could listen to or find information really was their car radio as they're trying to leave the area. so the radio stations and tv

stations that are still on the air are very vital for public safety and information and about the weather. they have to -- people listen to the local broadcasters about what's happening right there. when hurricane rita came into houston in 2005 approximately 2.5 million to three million people evacuated. now, some say that this is the largest evacuation in american history. i don't know. that's a lot of people on the road and they're all headed north to get away from the wind and the rain and the flooding that's taking place. and what people were listening to in the car was local radio

stations that were on the air broadcasting, not just the weather but the traffic that was taking place. eventually the freeways, the interstates all allowed traffic to move on all lanes north. the way the folks found out about that was on the radio. the announcements being made by the department of public safety, texas highway department that the lanes had been shifted so that everybody could travel in all of the lanes that took place. so that information so vital, but it's not just important during hurricane season. it's important, as already stated by the gentleman from arkansas, it's important during even normal weather, if we can call what's taking place in washington normal weather. the snow and the ice. people want to listen to local

radio to find out and local television. also -- even go back to katrina. we all remember hurricane katrina. folks in louisiana left louisiana and they came to texas, and as they were getting to texas, guess what, hurricane rita hit texas. but houstonians primarily, when those folks from louisiana were coming our way were told by local media on where they could go to take things for those neighbors were louisiana. everything from food and blankets and go volunteer to help out to find shelter for these individuals. local radio, local television is broadcasting how that can be done, how that can be helped to those individuals. that couldn't have been done if we didn't have our local broadcasters who know the area know the people. we have amber alert. that's throughout the country. 296 texas children that were

abducted had been rescued because of the amber alert system that was created in 1998 by the dallas-fort worth broadcasters. the other issue that i want to mention is our -- well, there's two more and they are just as important. local radio and television has local political issues and debates on our community from the local politicians, local office holders and others. that's all done locally by our broadcasters on television it's done on radio all the time. there's political argument and debate by our local media. and something that's important to us -- i don't know about the doorkts, but it's important to us -- dakotas, but it's important to us. we like football in texas. we like high school football. let's be specific, on friday night everybody is playing football at the high schools,

at the stadiums. our local broadcasters, yes, they're out there at the stadiums and at 10:00 news they have a little bit of news then they have a little bit of weather and then they spend most of the rest of the news broadcasting tapes from the high school football games in the houston area. they are very important, mr. speaker to know exactly who won the game, who the visiting team was. high school football. we're not going to see that unless we have local broadcasting, and of course high school football is on the radio as well. i want to mention that important service that local broadcasters give us. we have a lot of great broadcasters in the houston area, both on radio, in television. i'd like to mention some of them. channel 13 have dave ward. i think he's been on television -- nightly news -- i'd hate to say 30 years. maybe it's been that long or more. along with gina gaston. channel 26 we got jose grenon.

dominick sasha. and then channel 11, greg hearst and lisa hernandez. years ago there was this local television celebrity that worked for channel 13, he turned out to be a celebrity named marvin zindler. he's an icon in the houston area. he's a local broadcaster and he spent time going around in the houston restaurants examining restaurants, and as he said, looking for slime in the ice machine. and he did a nightly broadcast on restaurants that just weren't up to the health standards of the city of houston. other investigative reporters are doing something very similar on the local basis as well. but it's all local. it's the local broadcasteres that are doing it. i thank the gentleman, mr. cramer. sorry i talked so long.

the local folks, we couldn't exist without them and radio, we appreciate what they do, not just for football but for the other things as well. and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. cramer: i thank the gentleman from texas and i especially thank him for raising the football illustration just because it's an opportunity while he wondered if it was important in north dakota, north dakotans have become very accustomed to coming to texas for football games because the north dakota has won the f.s.u. championship game in frisco, texas. we look forward to a trip next year, perhaps. i appreciate what you raised about how many broadcast stations really -- while they are tools of the first amendment and they're also obviously an important part of the first amendment because that's where they drive their rights to express and to broadcast, but where would politicians be without broadcasting debates? so i appreciate that as well.

at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from rhode island just to let everybody know, this is obviously a very important bipartisan special order because this is a very important bipartisan issue so i recognize the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for the time and for organizing this special order and to be sure that folks do not think local broadcasters are only important in the midwest, i'm here representing new england. and we have many, many examples where local broadcasters have really made a difference in rhode island. and i'd like to -- i think sometimes the best way to illustrate that is to give real examples of where that happened. and so, for example, there was a documentary made about a homeless man finding help at crossroads, which is the largest homeless service organization in our state in the state of rhode island. wpri tv local broadcaster in the city of providence secured the rights to this documentary and took the opportunity to create a telethon around its

airing. viewers were asked to open their hearts and their pocketbooks and pledge by phone or online and that effort raised $85,000 for the shelter providing greatly needed funding as the housing crisis and the economy create an ever growing demand for the shelter services. so that's one example. another example is while residents of our capital city of the city of providence waited fog their electricity to be restored in their homes after hurricane irene cut off power to many in our state, wjr-tv simulcast on clear water wjam-tv providence. this allowed them to receive around the clock coverage on battery operated radios which was obviously a very important service. . we have meeting street that provides individual learning programs for children with

developmental disabilities and meeting street is allowed to tell the story of its wonderful school to the community each year during its annual telethon on wpri-tv. it preempts prime time programming and all production is done in-house by the station. last year it generated $500,000 . and has raised billions of dollars over the years. in woonsocket rhode island, they carry on the milk fund as a way to help struggling families. each year through the month of december, multiple fundraising has raised monies. this past fall listeners turned into wkkb for its spanish programming promise for hope

radiothon. it is carried out with 15 sister stations to raise awareness of childhood cancer and st. jude to offer treatment to all children regardless of their family's ability to pay. it raised $100,000 and more than 630,000 between the 16 stations combined. and one final example wpri established the minority scholarship and training program. recipients receive a scholarship which can be used towards school expenses. and lynn media provides students with hands-on training for an internship training program. the recipients are assigned full-time positions upon

successful completion of the training program. there are examples like this all across the country wrl local broadcasters are not only helping to raise funds and getting information to listeners and viewers during emergencies but to help strengthen our communities i acknowledge local broadcasters and i hope it shows how helpful they are. i yield back. and thank you for the time. mr. cramer: and the very thorough list of examples of the incredible public service that our broadcasters do in the northeast. thank you very much for that. it occurs to me, mr. speaker, as i listen to my colleagues talk about the importance of local broadcasters, that they really have multiple public service roles. it is a public service to be able to give the news, to deliver the sporting games, to

deliver the weather, to deliver emergency information for public safety, to let people know what's going on in the community. that's an important service. but the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline brings up many other charitable things. and i participated in many charitable events that were good, that raised decent important money for important causes. when a broadcaster gets involved, it adds value and brings awareness and sometimes brings celebrity to it. and you could see a charity lifted up by virtue of the fact, the local tv station or radio station or some cases, multiple stations took on the cause. not because there is anything in it for the broadcast station or the manager. sure, sometimes there are programs that have a sales component to it that you can go out and sell, but by and large,

these are pure acts of public service, pure acts of charity that just a little bit of air time, just a little bit of local personality if it's attached to a cause can validate the cause and bring awareness to the cause and bring momentum to the cause that brings other private sector involvement, whether it's volunteers or money and in some cases both. and we can solve a lot of problems when we get a broadcaster involved. i had the opportunity to be part of a special program that i know a lot of my colleagues have been involved in and that's honor flights. a local broadcaster in fargo, north dakota, that saw a national story about the honor flight that flies world war ii veterans to see the national member lal. they took it on and created the

honor flight and four flights of veterans have been completed. the broadcast leading up to it so the veterans could sign up and they broadcasted the trips themselves and to honor these men and women the heroes of the greatest generation and brought the celebration home, in a way that you couldn't do without that involvement. that resulted in another honor flight chapter being raised up in bismarck and i became a chairman. we had five flights out of bismarck and kx became our broadcast partner. they raised awareness that helped us get more veterans signing up but got the whole community involved. and at the end of it all, they provided a documentary, a video documentary of the experience so every veteran and their families who participated had that

wonderful memory in a dvd that they could watch for the rest of their lives. just this last weekend i was on a radio show in fargo called "heroes of the heartland." it's on an hour every saturday where a local veteran hosts the show and it's all about veterans. and the show is -- i hope it wins an award for what it does for veterans. while i was on the show answering questions about legislation dealing with veteran issues, people would call in and say, did you know the v.a. in fargo is holding a public information meeting in a neighboring city on saturday at whatever time, where veterans can come and air their grievances or give their appreciation or learn about the v.a. and i thought wow how cool is this? not only was the radio station there to spread the information, but the listener became the

newsmaker, they became the broadcaster. that's the other neat thing about local radio. it provides the opportunity where everybody is a broadcaster. if you see an accident or find bad weather or see something happen that you want to alert the public about, you have that opportunity now. now with new media, being broadcast media. it was an honor to be on "heroes of the heartland." i have the great privilege of having -- representing the entire state of north dakota. that's a big congressional district. no not as big as montana, alaska or wyoming, but it's pretty big. i try to have a lot of town halls. but i had the opportunity working with the broadcasters and i have a one-hour talk.

am 550. and dickin son and flag -- dick inson and flag and up in the tioga carries the town hall. and people have the opportunity to call me live on the air or call in at an 800 number and leave a message ap and it's broadcast statewide and rebroadcast again in the evening and provides a great opportunity for me to be in touch with my constituents and for them to talk to me and for me to be able to talk to them. as you can tell, mr. speaker, i'm a big advocate for free over-the-air broadcast media, whether it is radio television and certainly both. in the new media area and i appreciate mr. crawford's thoughts on this, that we can --

we have this opportunity still -- that there is still an important role for free broadcast radio and television that even with the new media, it only enhances the importance of free over-the-air broadcasts. i want to recognize one other member. i'm going to recognize him for as much as as time as he needs. mr. farenthold: it's an honor to speak about the value that our local broadcaster brings. i started hanging around the radio station and ended up getting a job through high school and college and have worked on and off in radio ever since and our local broadcasters are such a value to our communities. we have a market now with all sorts of new technologies for people to get music and entertainment. satellite radio, there is

internet and pan dora. nothing compares to what the local broadcasters can brian this is bringing a resurgence. they are going away from syndicated programs to local programs that are more in tune to the needs of the community than something being piped over a satellite. you have great opportunities. local businesses now have more opportunities to advertise targeting local awedenses. you have news departments that are beginning to resurge in local radio and television stations as people need they need local news. and in times of an emergency, nobody comes to the aid of a community like the broadcast facilities. typically they'll suspend programming in the event of a hurricane. it's your first source of information, where you can get fresh water or emergency aid. it brings out the best.

and local broadcasters are committed to their community. you know, much like people who run for elected office, in order to get people to know you like you and listen to you and watch you like a tv station, they have to be out in the community, too. they have to be at the local events, the chamber of commerce or sponsor a charitable event. broadcasters donate millions of dollars in air time to support local charities and community activities. it's the backbone of america. we have to be careful up here in washington. we have lots of stuff on our agenda that could potentially affect broadcasters. we have copyright reform on the agenda. we have to find the right balance where content creators are compensated for their creative works but broadcasters aren't penalized where they have to shut down the news department

or cut down on employees. we have to make sure we have licensing and communication acts reform. our communication act is old and bring it into the 21st century and don't cripple our local broadcasters, many of whom who live in the communities and are valuable parts of the community and are basically in some cases the heartbeat of the community. but i do want to reiterate, we are at a time we really can see a resurgence in local broadcasting, local content, the local of service. it's not wall-to-wall hits in order to compete with xm. our local folks have to be at community events and bringing local news and local content and stuff that is relevant to peoples' lives. they have done it for decades and it's great to see that

resurgence and to be a part of it. it's a great time for broadcasters in america right now. mr. cramer: if the gentleman from texas would engage me for just a minute. i would ask you you about -- you raise an important point that i hadn't thought about it that is sort of natural, if you are going to be a good local broadcaster you have to be a good citizen. mr. farenthold: you have got to say yes to the folks that come in and say, could you give us a public service announcement for our cancer walk, could you give us a public service announcement for whatever event. the community bulletin boards that you used to hear are coming back, and that's something xm or satellite providers just can't do. sure they are getting the technology to localize some of the ads by downloading them into your devices, but not like the

local broadcaster who is a part of the community. mr. cramer: you raised very important points and i appreciate the reminder that while we are educating and informing and celebrating local broadcasters that it is at risk. that we can take our eye off the ball and assume or presume some things and wake up one day and find out that when that accident happens on the railroad tracks or a storm is coming, that suddenly there is nobody there, to tell us about it. mr. farenthold: you need someone who has a local news presence and don't have to bring in a satellite truck from a few hundred miles away. sure, the weather channel will send jim cantore down. they send him to the dangerous locations, but he doesn't know the local community. we have a local guy doing him

and we call him dead wrong dale whatever profession could you be in, get it wrong half the time but still have a job. he gets it a whole lot right more than wrong. but he knows the places that are going to flood. he knows the areas and the neighborhoods that are most susceptible to damage. those out-of-town reporters don't. the media is citizens of the community and what they do is improve the lives of everybody in the community. they shop at the grocery store with the folk. their children are in school and in the community. they know what's going on and they can reflect what's going on and can react what's going on in the community and really be a valuable asset for good. mr. cramer: you are an articulate person on behalf of local broadcasting and taking your time.

. i say there's a group that could be wrong and keep their jobs too. i notice if you stay in good contact through your broadcast community, with your constituents that helps as well. mr. farenthold: and i appreciate your yielding the time and organizing this wonderful special order. mr. cramer: well, it's very important. as i said mr. speaker, at the beginning, over 600 broadcasters are in town today calling on the members of congress calling on us reminding us of the important role that they play to public safety to public information -- pay to public safety to public information, in many ways, not just in delivering the news and weather and sports, in being active in our communities and elevating those important causes that make for a quality community, contributing their talent, contributing their -- of course, their broadcast spectrum which is really the people's, and i think that's an

important point that we sometimes forget. there's a reason that broadcasters have this legal obligation to public service is because the people own the airwaves and we rent them, if you will, but it's important that broadcasters and congress stay in close touch because as the gentleman from texas pointed out, this is a fragile relationship. and we can sometimes take them for granted while presuming that there will always be other ways to communicate when we know in fact when the lights go out, when the electricity goes off, when a storm hits whatever the case might be, as long as you have a car radio and a good battery or you have a battery-operated radio and the broadcasters are on the air, you can always get that information from your local, reliable familiar, friendly broadcaster. so with that mr. speaker, i

appreciate the time and appreciate my colleagues from both sides of the aisle from across our country who have taken the time today to help, inform, educate and celebrate the american broadcaster. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015 the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. swalwell:

mr. swalwell: thank you mr. speaker. tonight is the inaugural special order hour of the future forum. today young people across america are asking themselves how they're going to afford their education, and if they are even lucky enough to get an education, how they're going to be able to afford to pay off that education and how they're going to find a well-paying job that can help them pay off that education, buy their first home, start a family and send their own kids to school. that's the issue that the future forum is going to address. we're going to discuss this issue, the american dream of homeownership, and something very important to millennials, diversity and equality. millennials make up about 75 million people of the american population. it's the most diverse generation in america's history. we believe in the future forum that we are uniquely suited for this because we are part of the future too, and it's time that

the future and the party of the future starts talking to the future. we will be taking time on the house floor and at events around the country to meet with and listen to younger americans about how we in government can better ensure that younger americans have the opportunities that will allow them not only to dream but to achieve. this is a two-way conversation. we will use technology and a collaborative approach in our communications and in our outreach. our policy priorities are very simple. college access and affordability, job security and entrepreneurship and equality and diversity. members of the future forum and many of them were called to public service because of what happened on september 11. a recent center for american progress survey found that the defining issue for millennials is september 11, and as i stand in this well, we are just three days from the department of

homeland security being shut down, and i've invited members of the future forum to share their own personal stories about how they recall the service, what homeland security means to them and their constituents and i would first like to invite down a freshman member the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle, and i yield time to him. mr. boyle: thank you. thank you mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the previous speaker for exercising tremendous leadership in helping to forge this, the future forum. i'm proud to join him of being the founding member of this important caucus, one that i hope will go out and touch the lives of many young people throughout the country. in having a conversation with the previous speaker about what brought him to public service

and what brought me to public service, i was relaying my personal story and it happened to involve september 11. was not one of the heroes by any means. just one of the ordinary americans working in the private sector straight out of college, attempting to pay off a ton of student loans and right here in the washington, d.c., area just a couple miles from the pentagon that bright blue sky, beautiful morning when the world suddenly changed. mark twain had said a long time ago that america's two best friends in the world are miss atlantic and mr. pacific. september 11, 2001 proved that that was no longer the case, that we were not a separate fortress onto ourselves and completely removed from the problems around the world. that was a -- as the previous speaker mentioned -- such an important event in my life and

in the lives of so many people in their 30's and younger. as a member of this september 11 generation, i decided right then that i would devote my life to public service. the very next year -- september 11, 2002, began my graduate program in public policy and embarked on a path that about 14 years later has led here to serving in the halls of the house of representatives. attempting to make a difference, solve problems and do so on a bipartisan basis, and i know there are many people on the other side of the aisle, good republicans who feel the same way i do, that we can have our legitimate debates, that we can have our debates on public policy, but that when it comes of all things to the security of the american people we need to put the nonsense aside and actually focus on protecting our people. so mr. speaker when we had

come down here and planned to speak about the future forum, i had expected that my speech would be about the student loan debt crisis, something that is deeply affecting our generation a generation that is more indebted than any other in our nation's history. but instead, we're here to talk about the fact we're just three days away from seeing the department of homeland security completely shut down, seeing the furloughing of 35,000 employees of the department of homeland security. on the same very day that information was released that three american citizens have attempted to join isis, which should be called dash, the so-called islamic state those who truly are evil and would do whatever they could to harm any one of the 310 million of us living in this country --

mr. swalwell: i ask the gentleman from pennsylvania -- you talk about your call to service and after september 11 and you think about to that day -- i don't know if you remember but republicans and democrats standing on the stairs of the capitol -- on the steps of the capitol and singing "god bless america" and "america the beautiful" and it was such a moment of collaboration. every day since that day, up until now, homeland security and our nation's security has always been about collaboration and bipartisanship and i just wonder, to hear that department of homeland security could be shutting down, harkonning back to what you thought about collaboration back then does that -- does that gel, is that the collaboration that you had in mind and you always thought of around our nation's security? mr. boyle: well, the gentleman asks a great question. actually, it's the exact opposite of the sort of spirit that was invoked on september 11. i remember seeing the pictures of a -- i believe it was a

spontaneous gathering of both democratic and republican members serving in congress at that time to come together on the capitol steps to sing "god bless america." i think it's a sad commentary that just a decade and a half later we're here at an incredibly dangerous time, mind you, in some ways actually more dangerous than the days immediately following september 11 and instead of talking about how we can come together in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion pass this -- what should be noncontroversial bill to fund our department of homeland security, the fact that we're right here caught up in a partisan fight over this is deeply disappointing. and is not at all jive with the spirit of september 11 and i think the spirit of a generation that was called to serve in the wake of those events. mr. swalwell: thank you. i'll now yield to the gentleman also from california, someone who has served our country, not

just in california's legislature, not just in the congress, but also in our armed services currently serving in the air force reserves, the gentleman from california, mr. lou. mr. lujan: thank you. let me -- mr. lieu: thank you. i respect what the voters in our nation and they gave republicans control of the united states senate and the house of representatives. and my sincere plea and request to those across the aisle who control congress, please do not shut down the department of homeland security. and the republican leader in the u.s. senate is now poised to delink the issue of funding for security for our homeland from immigration reform. i hope my colleagues across the aisle will do the same and that's because immigration reform has very little to nothing to do with protecting

our homeland. i would love to have a debate on immigration reform. i think we need to do that. i'd love to vote for a bill on immigration reform, but they were not linked to funding for homeland security. let me just give you an example. let's talk about dreamers who came as children to our nation, who can serve in the united states military. i serve on active duty -- i served in active duty and now in the reserves. to say we're going to deport them because they're a homeland security risk and we're not going to fund homeland security because of that is ridiculous. there's no reason to link those two issues. if you don't like dreamers, if you want to deport dreamers, fine. let's have a debate on that. but they are not homeland security risks, and to link these two issues don't make any sense. the republican leader in the united states senate has figured that out. i hope that this house does as well. and there are some grave consequences to this. in my state of california alone, nearly 27,000 employees

of homeland security will either be furloughed or will get no pay and cannot come to work. these folks are folks that protect our homeland. it is unacceptable that this is going to happen, but the other way homeland security works is they provide grants to local first responders across the nation, to law enforcement to firefighters. on friday, if if homeland security shuts down, those grants -- if homeland security shuts down those grants stop and those local responders stop. this is a very real issue and we in congress, our first priority is to protect the american public. shutting down homeland security will be the exact opposite of that. i really hope that the republicans who control both houses do not shut down homeland security. mr. swalwell: i also wonder mr. speaker, will the gentleman from california thinks as somebody who's serving in the reserves right now and serving shoulder to shoulder with some young dreamers, what would it do to the morale of the ranks

if dreamers who are putting themselves on the front lines, willing to go serve the country they call their own, the united states in battle if the house g.o.p. had their way and those dreamers were removed and deborted from our country, what would -- deported from the country, what would do the morale? mr. lieu: one of them is because of their language skills, the u.s. military needs some of these language skills so that the u.s. military knows what these terrorists are doing in other parts of the world. and to have the language skills that dreamers possess, that's one reason we have them serve in the u.s. military, so they have a direct effect on trying to prevent terrorist attacks into our homeland. to say we're not going to fund homeland security because we want to deport you is ridiculous. .

mr. boyle: you mentioned the language talent. as someone who is in the military, don't you think we are missing out on a lot of potential of kids who have gone through the daca program? mr. polis: a kid in my district wanted to be in the district and didn't find out he wasn't american until he was 15 and still not letting him join the military. what kind of talent are we missing out by not letting these deferred-action kids enlisting in the regular manner? mr. lieu: having been in the military for 19 years, it is very clear that their main criteria can you complete the mission and how good you are at completing the mission is not whether or not you have a piece of paper to say you are

documented. u.s. military is missing out on talent, people who otherwise would do great things for our military to protect our homeland and so on. it makes very little to no sense to link these two issues that shouldn't be linchinged. let's have separate debates on both issues. the senate is about to do that and i hope the house can do it as well. mr. swalwell: another freshman member. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. >> mr. speaker. >> i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california may continue. mr. swalwell: i would like to invite to join our conversation, freshman member from

massachusetts, someone who has served our country very honorably in the marines. >> i think our republican colleagues have a point which is that we need to have a debate about immigration. this is an issue facing our country and this is an issue that reached crisis proportions. mr. moulton: moult we need to have that debate. i returned from a week-long trip to the middle east, to iraq afghanistan, to the u.a.e., kuwait and jordan to understand the situation on the ground and especially the threat that isil poses to the united states of america. i can tell you that that threat is serious and severe.

there are those who think that this will just be a middle eastern problem that it won't come to infect our homeland. i don't share that view. i think it's a serious threat. isil has brutally killed americans abroad and make clear their intentions to kill americans here at home. that is the kind of protection from threats like that that the department of homeland security provides. we cannot put our nation's security at risk for a debate that is critical, that needs to happen, but that is separate from keeping americans safe. our most say credit responsibilities as members of congress is to protect our homeland. and right now the partisan brinksmanship funding the department of homeland security is putting that safety at risk. i served my country four tours

in iraq. i was proud to serve and go every time but i don't want to see americans to have to keep going back to that part of the world because we can't provide for our security at home. we have a lot of work to do in this congress and a lot of it requires bipartisan cooperation. immigration is one of those issues. it's an issue we need to debate on the floor of the house. we need to take up the senate bill for comprehensive immigration reform and decide whether it does enough to ensure the safety of our borders and the future of those who aspire to be americans. but none of that should happen at the expense of our nation's security. i yield back to the gentleman from california. mr. swalwell: i have a question to the gentleman from massachusetts. i know you are active on social media and i follow you and you are very in touch with your constituents, particularly those on social media and what are you

hearing from young people about the house g.o.p.'s inability to fund the department of homeland security? what are young people thinking about the inability to separate an important immigration issue and something so critical and so important as homeland security? >> what mr. moulton: what i hear is they want congress to get the job done for the american people. our job is to debate the issues, but ultimately it's to pass bills and to make laws and fund systems of our government. people say they want us to get it done and want us to have that debate on immigration reform and want us to do that too. but they need funding for the department of homeland security. my generation has grown up under the threat we came to face on september 11. many of my friends were in new york on that perilous day and watched the planes crash into

the world trade center towers. it's a remarkable testament of the success of the department of homeland security that over the past decade, we have not had another attack. that's a remarkable achievement. mr. swalwell: i thank you. and i invite you to join the conversation. a leader in our party someone who serves on the house rules committee and the house appropriations committee, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from california to just talk with people and that's what this body very best does. we talk amongst ourselves and solve problems. what you are hearing about today, namely we are three days from shutting down our own national security is an example of this body not solving a problem but causing a problem. you think who's causing this, why is our security going to shut down in three days, who is

doing this, who is shutting down the department of homeland security. the sad answer is we are doing it to ourselves. there is no reason for this manufactured crisis. i want to share my story from 9/11. 9/11 is something that in our generation, we all remember where we were. it's like the kennedy assassination to our grand parents' generation or moon landing everybody knows exactly where they were and what we were doing. i was in a conference in washington, d.c. here and like anybody who was near the sites, it was scary. the rumors we were under attack and thought they were bombs and madhouse to try to escape the area and get out of the city. and we drove all the way back to colorado. and i never got to see what was happening to the towers in real-time or the immediate

aftermath because the next 25 hours i was listening to it in the car. that was a unique moment. our petty differences melted by the wayside as we came together around a national response. and it's sad to see our nation go back to those same kind of partisan divisions, which unfortunately, reduce our national security. when we are talking about the department of homeland security i would point out was set up after 9/11. that was set up to ensure that something like 9/11 doesn't happen together. it coordinated agencies in a new way that didn't occur before. encouraged intelligence sharing about domestic threats and now a lot of that work is three days away from being defunded over a totally different issue one we are happy to talk about, by the

way. we talk about dreamers and what a pathway to citizenship would look like and what the president can do and can't do. and there are many diverse opinions about this in this body, but i would hope with no opinion wouldn't hold our national security hostage. i'm reminded what one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has said and said, we have taken a hostage we don't want to shoot. they are taking our own security of our nation, the department of homeland security hostage, do they want to shoot that hostage? our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they aren't bad people. i hope they don't go through with it but have gotten themselves over this rhetoric. i yield to the gentleman from california. mr. swalwell: i would ask my colleague, knowing that, as we speak and the gentleman from

pennsylvania pointed this out, mr. boil, three americans are -- mr. boyle, three americans are in custody because they wanted to join isil. as we speak, our enemies are plotting against us. although my colleagues across the aisle wishes to shut down the department of homeland security, our enemies do not intend on shutting down their efforts to attack america. what do you think knowing that colorado is home to a large airport, denver airport what is going to happen to the transportation security officers who are charged with detecting these hidden bombs that al qaeda has put out there that they would like to put on our airliners, detecting people who are trying to come back to the united states after fighting alongside with isil, what is it going to mean across places like

denver? >> you mentioned -- we had a young lady from our district from lafayette, colorado who tried to get over to turkey and syria to join isis and four her parents and her own life, thanks to the efforts of the department of homeland security, her travel plans were detected and she was detained at the airport and not allowed to join isis. thank goodness we had the department of homeland security connecting those difficult to connect dots. i don't know how they did it this day because people go to turkey, but they use several points of information to figure out that this young lady was trying to join isis and they were able to return her to her family. that happens every day across our country. and if in three days this congress doesn't take action, we are tying our own hands behind

our back in our fight against terrorism, which makes absolute no sense. look you and i are equally passionate about our views on immigration. we would love to see daca expanded and i would love to see a pathway to citizenship but no matter how much i want to see those things that i would shut down the security of the country just to get it. i don't think most americans don't think that way. perhaps some younger colleagues, where they get all the toys and not get all the toys. but that's the approach. if they don't get their exact way fine, we aren't going to keep the nation safe. that just doesn't make sense in any deliberative body that we all grew up thinking -- the lofty deliberative body, that doesn't make sense that kind of reasoning.

mr. lieu: my wife, as you may know is a kindergarten teacher. mr. boyle: she would take issue with you comparing members of congress to the kids she teaches. the kids she teaches are much better behaved than the the people in congress. . this is a false choice. we can have the necessary debate on immigration and immigration reform. there's been a great american tradition going back to the very beginning of on the one hand praising the immigrants ofiesteryear, while simultaneously expressing concern about the immigrants of the present day. that was the case in the 1840's and the 1880's and the 1920's and so it is today. that debate will always be a part of who we are as a nation

of immigrants. and as a nation of laws. and i think that debate needs to happen. and we need to have that here on the floor of the house. the same way they did in the senate where they passed a bill with 70 votes on a bipartisan basis. so let's get to that debate, let's not allow this side show over holding up a homeland security bill that i think all of us agree here, all 435 of us agree, that we need. these are real dangerous threats we face. people who actually thought that al qaeda was not extreme enough, so they wanted to go join an even more murderous, more barbaric group. as the sign that mr. swalwell had up was showing, our enemies are certainly not shutting down their efforts, nor should we. i do want to ask mr. swalwell a question and that is, and i think this is important, whether you're at the denver

airport or philadelphia airport or the bay area what message do you think it sebleds to ordinary citizens -- sends to ordinary citizens who are looking to their congress to just get things done and protect them, the people who aren't necessarily strongly ideological one way or the other who just want to believe that their government can work, what kind of message do you think we're sending to them this week with this sort of behavior? mr. swalwell: it's a message of dysfunction. i know mr. polis, just like mr. houlton, is very much in touch with the doctors and dreamers who are defining the innovation economy. whether it's in the bay area or colorado or philadelphia or boston and cambridge. these folks, they see the shortest distance between two points as a straight line. they don't see it as a partisan line. they're problem-solving by nature and they can't understand why politics would get in the way of something so simple as funding the department of homeland

security. my own personal september 11 story, as mr. polis was saying, i was headed to capitol hill that morning. i was an intern for congresswoman toucher. i remember the gray suit i was wearing, it was the one i wore every day at that time as i was racking up my own student dealt. as i got to the capitol, i was turned around because the building had been evacuated and what i do remember, though, in addition to the color of the suit i wore and the phone call that i got from the staff assistant telling me to go home, i remember those members of congress singing "god bless america." i remember in the weeks and the months and the years afterwards the bipartisan september 11 commission report. i remember the creation of the department of homeland security. i felt so honored when i was elected to come to congress to be asked to serve on the homeland security committee. i felt so honored during my second term to be asked to serve on the intelligence committee. and i cannot believe that just 14 years later, after all of

this bipartisanship and collaboration, while every other issue around us seems to be mired in gridlock we have always agreed that we fund the department of homeland security that was created out of september 11. and today, to think that we are so close to shutting down that department, it really does defy the collaboration that came out of september 11. i would actually ask my colleague from colorado, you know, who has been here -- he's in the future forum, but he's one of the more senior members of congress in the future forum, he's been serving now i think in his fourth term. what do you think about the collaboration that we've seen around homeland security up until now? mr. polis: as i like to remind my friend from california, he said there's not really a strict age limit per se of the future forum, but i'm very proud to still be under the 40 number. at least for another half year or so. mr. swalwell: we're all in our

30's here. mr. polis: good. we're still all in our 30's. but look, i think that what is happening is when people of all ages, but particularly young people look at congress, and then look at this kind of thing you yourselves are shutting down security? when they look at that, when they look at when the whole government shut down right, again, do we remember why? not really. i don't remember why the republicans shut down the government. there wasn't really a reason. ultimately they gave up and reopened it. it didn't make sense. when people see that, they lose faith in this institution, they lose faith in democracy, they lose faith in themselves, that we can't allow that to happen. the only way for this body to change, for the quality of government to change, is for people to be invested in that change. to have that same sense of solidarity. they came -- that came after 9/11. not just around disasters, but every day. when it's election day, to make sure to vote. when it's time to write and call your congress person. if you have a congress person

who thinks it's ok to shut down the department of homeland security, call that congress person. show up at their town hall meetinging. guess what? it's not ok to play games with our national security. as my colleague from pennsylvania pointed out many kindergarteners are more mature than somebody who either wants to have it their way or not at all and to send all the toys home. so that's really what we face here in this scenario. i think we've really hit upon one of the reasons that people of all ages, but particularly younger people are losing faith, not just in this institution, but as the part of the democracy represents, and how it is our role to try to reinfuse that hope in not just again the competency of this institution but the institution of representative government and the vision that our founding fathers put in place through the constitution. mr. swalwell: thank you. something we haven't really talked too much about yet and we've alluded to the fact we're charging these transportation safety officers with detecting

these hidden bombs that al qaeda is determined to put on our airplanes we're charging the border patrol agents to protect our border and make sure that's secure, but if this shutdown happens they still have to do that job. the threats continue to elevate and escalate. but those employees will not get paid. and so i wonder what my colleague from massachusetts, mr. moulton, someone who flies home logs a lot of miles going back and forth between washington and his district, flying into loning, you look those transportation safety officers in the eye every week when you're coming to washington and getting off the plane in boston. what is the morale going to be among our t.s.a. work force, among our border patrol work force, if they still have to do the job, as the threats escalate, but we're not going to pay them? mr. moulton: thank you, mr. swalwell. there's no question that their

morale and their mission effectiveness will be hurt. in fact, it will hurt my own morale because i'm very proud to serve in the united states congress but i'm not going to be proud to walk through that security gate and have to look them in the eye when they recognize that i'm partly responsible as a member of this body for not giving them the basic pay that they need for their families. another element of department for home -- of homeland security is the u.s. coast guard and many of us know that the u.s. coast guard protects our shores. i represent the fishing community of gloces -- gloucester. they've gone through some hard times and have often had to rely on the coast guard to save its fishermen in the worst storms. those coastguardsmen not only protect fisherman there, they work with our mill -- fishermen there, they work with our military and defense overseas. there are coastguardsmen understand and -- coast guards men and women in the middle east right now. can you imagine being in the persian gulf, defending

american ships against the threat of an iranian attack, and yet not knowing whether your rent will be paid back at home? that's an unacceptable risk for us to take and it's an unacceptable burden for to us ask them to bear. you're absolutely right. this is going to severely impact their morale and when morale is impacted, it hurts their ability to do this incredibly important job. mr. swalwell: while the workers are going to still have to do the job and not get paid much of the department will shut down. and an important part that will shut down will be the department of homeland security grants. i've had the opportunity in just the last few weeks to go and visit about half a dozen fire houses. i call them fire house chats. i pop in and meet with the brave men and women who are serving as firefighters in our community. but if this shutdown happens for example, we will see all of the assistants to firefighters

grants stop. so the men and women who are responding to car accidents, building fires, god for bid if -- forbid if a terrorist attack occurred, the people who are going to run into the burning buildings, who rely on these grants to hire firefighters, to give them the equipment that they need, that's all going to be stopped. so i'm wondering if you've heard and your district or -- in your district or if you talk to your law enforcement and public safety officials about the grants they depend upon and what it would mean if that funding just went cold. mr. moulton: it would be in a word, devastating. i'm proud of the fact that i represent a part of my district is the city of philadelphia. mr. boyle: one of the largest amend oldest in our nation. also a number of volunteer fire departments in montgomery county, pennsylvania. there's so many of them around the country. to put them in this position is just deeply unfair. i'm also thinking, as i'm looking to my friend to the right, fellow freshman, mr.

moulton, he happens to be from massachusetts. they right now are devastated with mountains of snow that fortunately most of us in the rest of the country, while we've had snow, not nearly the way they've had it in new england. it's important to note that a number of those who work in femaa are the officials who receive -- fema are the officials who receive those grant applications, those emergency applications, that so many in massachusetts and vermont and other parts of new england and other parts of the country are applying for right now. because they have been so overstretched, given this incredible winter that we've had and recordbreaking in terms of snow, so they can complete -- they can keep on doing the applications and applying for assistance, the only problem is come saturday, we shut down the department of homeland security, there will be no one on the other end to receive them. i want to make one final point, and i think that this really strikes at the heart of why

we're here and why the future forum was created. this is my first year in the house. might end up serving one term, might end up serving 10 who knows? for anyone who serves here, they all talk about the fact that it goes by extremely quickly. we right now are members of a body with an approval rating of approximately 9%. i don't want to dedicate my life to public service in an area that is so poorly regarded by the american people. that's not something i want to do. i don't think that's something that other members on the other side want to do. it is important to our american democracy that whatever your ideology may be, whatever political positions you may have, we have to show the american people that their institutions of government can work. the american people, the overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans, have lost confidence in us. in all of us.

i don't think this kind of a political fight, frankly benefits either side. i think it's only a race to who loses less. we can end this now. let's do the responsible thing, the mature thing, the right thing fund homeland security and then get on to the important debates that we must be having. mr. swalwell: that's right. mr. moulton talked about this. we are taking an issue, immigration, that there are two sharply different sides on in this house. and that's fine. that debate needs to happen. and most people on our side want -- almost everyone on our side wants a pathway to citizenship. but that debate must happen. but because of that debate, what we are seeing is the one issue that we have always agreed on, since the department of homeland security was created, is now as divisive as the immigration issue.

meaning that the republicans would like to politicize an issue that always had bipartisan support and make that just as divisive as they have made the immigration issue. i think that's frankly unfortunate. mr. moulton, i'd invite you to close here on just your overall perspective on why we should or should not tie immigration to department of homeland security funding. mr. moulton: thank you, mr. swalwell. you're absolutely right. immigration is a debate that we need to have. it's a national security debate in and of itself. but we cannot hold the department of homeland security hostage to that debate. it needs to occur. we ought to have that debate and have it here on the floor of the house. but our most sacred responsibility and the present threat here is to make sure that our people are safe. i want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania my friend and colleague, mr. boyle, for bringing up the issue of fema grants. we have been faced with unprecedented snowfall in massachusetts. and it's put our first

responders to the test. they are providing for the security of the people of massachusetts right now. and we are all banding together to make sure that we get the fema grants that we need and deserve. in fact, it's a great example of a crisis that is bringing republicans and democrats together. the democratic delegation of massachusetts working hand in hand with our republican governor to make sure that we get these applications in so that we can get this funding that we desperately need. . so right here today, we can see the effects that the failing to fund the department of shutting it down will have. but even worse would be if we had to see the effects because of another attack on our homeland. having been to the middle east in the past week, having seen the unprecedented challenges that our first responders face at home, we can't afford to put our nation's security at risk.

all the young people out there, those who are our age they want ap government that works, they want a government they can believe in and want a government that will make us safe. let's fund department of homeland security. and show the american people that our congress can do its job. mr. swalwell: i thank my colleagues from california, colorado and also pennsylvania. and i will close by saying as mr. moulton alluded to, our principal responsibility can be found in the first sentence of the constitution, which is we the people in order to form a more perfect union to provide for the common defense of the united states. there is no agency that has a harder job but a job that is more important with protecting our homeland than the department of homeland security. we should be here today on our

first evening of the future forum, talking about the rising amount of student debt that students carry. we should be talking about how hard it is to get a job if you are a young person and finished college, we should be talking about how hard it is to be a home if you carrying this student debt and talk about the need of diversity and pathway to citizenship. we are here talking about the possibility, the real possibility that the department of homeland security created out of a bipartisan coalition in the early 2000's could shut down and leave us more vulnerable. i hope our better angels will guard us and the spirit that the house members had when they stood on the steps of the capitol prevail and we remember at the end of the day we are

charged with protecting the people. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015 the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. jolly, for 30 minutes. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to address the house this evening. and i appreciate the opportunity to continue a conversation that was started by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. there is a future in this body that is going to look a lot different than what it has looked like in past decades. i would fully concur. government should work, we should keep the government open, but we must also defend the constitution and that is the paradocks we are faced with this week and i rise with some frustration on my side of the aisle.

i have seen speeches upon speeches upon speeches about a partial shutdown of the department of homeland security. i have seen big signs in the well of this house scaring the american people about a potential partial shutdown. i have seen press conferences across the country, including my hometown in the tampa bay area, scaring the american people about something that has not yet happened. recognizing all of these speeches and all of these signs are not coming from members of our community, not from the people who elected us, but these speeches, these signs, the sky is falling mentality is coming from our elected leaders, from members of this body. and why does that matter? why do i rise tonight to continue the conversation started by my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle? it's because this. all we are hearing is speeches and all we are seeing are signs. we are not hearing solutions. this body, this entire body, both sides of the aisle, our constitutional authority was infringed upon when the president signed his executive order. that's not a partisan issue. we have a responsibility to confront that constitutional overreach. yes, one mechanism we use to do that is the power of the purse. that is a fundamental power of this body, the power of the purse. and it's appropriate that we respond to the president's unconstitutional overreach by exercising our constitutional privilege that of the appropriations process. but here's what i would point out to the american people tonight about the speeches that they hear from my friends and colleagues from the other side of the aisle recognize something very important, what

is being presented in the midst of this debate over the constitutional overreach of the president is merely an all or nothing approach. it is either we pass a clean bill and as the leader on the other side said, he will deliver 188 votes if we pass a clean bill, or it's nothing. friends colleagues, that is not legislating. that is using the bully pulpit. that's politics. that's not legislating. and so what i would ask tonight is where are the solutions? where are the convictions on the other side of the aisle? where are the efforts to pass a bill that acome dates all members of this body members on the other side? and yes, something the president can sign? i'm a member of congress who thinks that the first priority

of this government is to fund the government and fund department of homeland security. i'm looking to work with other colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i have three coast guard installations in my district, and it's true they will have to go to work saturday morning with the promise to be paid later. that is wrong. so we do have until friday evening to solve this, and i believe we will. i'm asking for accommodation and what will it take? what will it take? think about this rather than putting signs on the floor, rather than condemning our side of the aisle what if we talk about provisions that will build consensus and get a majority of this body, regardless of republican democrat, that funds department of homeland security and also responds to the constitutional overreach of the

president. i think we can get there. you know what i never heard? what if we remove the funding prohibition in the original house bill that prohibited further exercise of daca? they criticize it. so if we remove it, does that get us the votes to pass the bill. i understand there's disagreement over the president's executive order last september. i think it was wrong. members on the other side don't. a federal judge has said it's unconstitutional. the president of the united states said he didn't have the authority to do it, and yet he did it. what if we allowed six months to let the courts work its well. it's perfectly reasonable. if you are a member of this congress who stood up on opening day and took the oath to defend and protect the constitution of the united states to defend and protect the obligation of your

office, why don't we agree upon a six-month delay in the implementation of the president's executive order? does that get us there? because what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has said is true, the american people expects us to govern. doesn't matter our party affiliation but does matter whether we truly exercise the convictions that we pontificate about on the floor tonight. it's not about signs or the bully pulpit or press conferences. any member who stands up here tonight, republican or democrat and says we will be off worst off is absolutely right. we must fund the government. but where is the effort on the other side of the aisle to

actually reach a compromise? it's not there. i promise you, i have watched my colleagues from the time i got here this week, every speech. the leader on the other side of the aisle made an impassioned speech about the importance of funding homeland security and he's right. but my question is this. when will you abandon your all-or-nothing approach. exactly what you criticize this side of the aisle for is exactly what you are engaging in as well. we have tailed the american people if we let that lead us off the cliff. so my question to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is who is willing to step forward with a proposal that gets us there as a body? mr. speaker, i appreciate the time this evening. i look forward to ensuring that our department of homeland security is fully funded come friday night.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states section 202-d of the national emergency act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision i sent the notice to the federal register stating that the national emergency declared on march 1 1996 with respect to the government of cuba's destruction of two unarmed u.s. registered civilian aircraft in international airspace north of cuba as amended and expanded on february

26 2004 is to continue in effect beyond march 1 2015. signed barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: this week we have an opportunity to advance bold reforms that will strengthen k-12 education for children across america. a great education can be the great equalizer. it can open doors to unlimited possibilities and provide students the tools they need to succeed in life. every child in every school deserves an excellent education. yet mr. chairman, we are failing to provide every child that opportunity. today, approximately one out of five students drop out of high

school. and many who do graduate are going to college or entering the work forest with a sub-- the work force with a subpar education. the number of students proficient in reading and math is abysmal. the achievement gap is appalling. parents have little to no options to rescue their children from failing schools. a broken education system has plagued families for decades. year after year, policymakers lament the problems and talk about solutions and once in a while a law is enacted that promises to improve our education system. unfortunately, past efforts have largely failed because they're based on the idea that washington knows what's best for children. we've doubled down on this approach repeatedly and it is not working. federal mandates dick kate how to gauge student achievement, thousand define qualified teachers, how to spend money at the state and local levels and how to improve underperforming schools. and now, thanks to the unprecedented overreach of the

current administration, the department of education is dictating policies concerns teacher evaluations, academic standards and more. no one questions whether parents, teachers and local education leaders have committed to their students yet there are some who question whether they are capable of making the best decisions for their students. success in school should be determined by those who teach inside our classrooms, by administrators who understand the challenges facing their communities, by parents who know better than anyone the needs of their children. if every child is going to receive a quality education, we need to place less faith in the secretary of education and more faith in parents, teachers, and state and local leaders. that's why i'm a proud sponsor of the student success act. by reducing the federal footprint restoring local control and empowering parents and education leaders, commonsense bill will move our country in a better direction. .

this provides school districts more flexibility. the legislation eliminates dozens of ineffective or duplicative programs so each dollar makes a direct, meaningful and lasting impact in classrooms. the bill strengthens accountability by replacing the current national scheme with state-led accountability systems. returning the states the responsibility to measure student performance and improve struggling schools. the student success act also ensures parents have the information they need to hold their schools accountable. it's their tax money, but more importantly, it's their children. and they deserve to know how their schools are performing. the bill reaffirms the choice is a powerful life line for families with children in failing schools by extending the magnet school program expanding access to high quality charter schools and allowing federal funds to follow low-income students to traditional public or public charter school of the parents' choice.

finally, the student success act reins in the authority of the secretary of education. we must stop the secretary from unilaterally imposing his will on schools and this bill will do just that. perhaps, mr. chairman, that is why the white house and powerful special interests are teaming up to defeat this legislation. they fear the bill will lead to less control in washington and more control in states and school districts. let me assure the american people that is precisely what this bill will do. i urge my colleagues to help all children regardless of background income or zip code, receive an excellent education by supporting the student success act and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in -- raise in strong opposition to this bill. a landmark civil rights law enacted under president lyndon

b. johnson, as we approach the 50-year anniversary of its enactment, we cannot take lightly the goals and achievements over five decades. it is by that we must measure our education system today. we all know too well that quality education is even more vital today than it was generations ago. and our rapidly changing economy, our nation's continued success depends on a well-educated work force. a competitive and educated work force strengthens the very social fabric of america. people with higher levels of education are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to need public assistance less likely to become a teen parent, less likely to get caught up in the criminal justice system. over the course of the history,

we recognize that for many politically disconnected populations, access to equitable -- equitable access to an education has not been a reality. it is -- it was necessary for the federal government to fill in the gaps of funding our public school systems. inequality was inevitable. when most school systems are funded by real estate taxes. and further by the virtue of the fact that in our democratic society we respond to political pressure. over 50 years congress has recognized that low-income students were not getting their fair share of the pie and that supplemental resources were absolutely necessary to ensure that all children had access to quality public education. as a result congress has a longstanding policy to target our limited federal funding to schools and students who get left behind in an unequal system.

one of this bill's most troubling provisions, which strikes at the heart of the long history to target resources to our neediest students, is the so-called portability provision. now present law gives greater weight to funding in areas of high concentration of poverty. under h.r. 5, portability, a state agency could use all of its title 1 funds to districts based solely on the percentage of poor children regardless of the concentration of poor people in a district. as a result much of the title 1 support, intended toward those areas of concentration of poverty, would be reallocated to those wealthier areas. in other words, the low-income areas would get less, the wealthy areas would get more. i ask if that's the solution i wonder what you think the problem was. but analysis from a number of organizations including the

department of education, demonstrates the title 1 portability will take money from the poorest schools and school districts, and give more to affluent districts. this disproportionately affects students of color and this is just simply wrong. data shows that h.r. 5 boo whoa provide the largest -- would provide the largest 33 school districts with the highest concentration of black and hispanic students over $3 billion less in federal funding than the president's budget over the next six years. furthermore the center for american progress found in its review of portability the districts with high concentration of poverty could lose an average of $85 pursuant to while the more affluent areas would gain more than $290 pursuant to. there's an overwhelming body of research -- per student. there's an overwhelming body of research that shows school districts with the highest poverty are mitigated in a

certain way. this targets funding to schools where there's a greater concentration of poverty and this bill rolls the clock back and reverses that. to add insult to injury, h.r. 5 eliminates what's called maintenance of effort. a requirement of e.s. -- esca that states maintain their effort and federal money will supplement what they're doing. as a result of this bill, states could use their education funds to fund tax cuts or other noneducation initiatives. thus turning esca into a glorified slush fund where politicians could -- where politics would drive funding allocations. we know who's going to lose when politics are at play. our children. there are other flaws with h.r. 5. this bill sets no standards for college or career readiness and allows students with disabilities to be taught with lesser standard stds. it limits our investment in education -- standards.

it limits our investment insteadcation over the next six years because there's no adjustment for inflation. it block grants important programs, diluting the purpose and the outcome. taken as a whole, these policies will have a disproportion impact on students of color students with disability and our english language learners. it's no wonder that business groups, labor groups, civil rights disabilities and education groups have all expressed deep concerns about this legislation. mr. speaker, i stand in strong opposition to h.r. 5, as it will turn the clock back on american public education. in its current form the bill abandons fundamental principles of equity and accountability in our education system. it eviscerates education funding, fails to support our educators and leaves our children ill-prepared for success in the classroom and beyond. i therefore urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. it is now my great pleasure to recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on early childhood elementary and secondary education, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita, for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for four minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the chair and i thank the chairman for his great leadership on this bill and in the committee generally. i stand in strong support rise this afternoon because every student mr. chairman, every student deserves an effective teacher an engaging classroom and a quality education. that paves the path for a bright and prosperous future. that's what we all want. unfortunately, despite the best of intentions, the nation's current k-12 education law has failed to provide students this fundamental right. in fact, the law has only gotten in the way. far from taking us back to the past, this bill will take us to

the future where we should have been for a while now in terms of education. so that we can maintain competitiveness with the rest of the world and win in the 21st century. no child left behind's onerous requirements and the obama administration's waiver scheme and pet projects has created a one-size-fits-all scheme. as a result, too many young adults live high school today without basic knowledge of reading, math, science, they're ill-equipped to complete college and compete in the work force and consequently they're deprived of one of the best opportunities they have, to earn a lifetime of success. we shouldn't shackle any student to that kind of future. americans have settled for the status quo for if a too long and today we have an opportunity to chart the new course. the student success act departs from the top-down approach that has inefficiently and ineffectively governed education and restores that responsibility to its rightful stewards -- parents, teachers,

state and local education leaders the local taxpayers. first, the bill gets the federal government out of the business of running our schools. it eliminates the dizzying maze of federal mandates that has dictated local decisions and downsizes the bloated bureaucracy at the department of education that has focused on what washington wants rather than what students need. the whole theme of this bill is that we trust teachers, parents, local education officials and our local taxpayers much more than we would ever trust a federal bureaucrat. i find it funny that the other side, those that are against this bill actually cited the department of education in arguing what a bad bill this is. imagine a federal bureaucrat actually arguing to devolve its power back to its rightful owners. of course they're going to be for the status quo. they benefit from the status quo. the students do not. second, the bill empowers parents and education leaders

with choice, transparency and flexibility. it ensures parents continue to have the information they need to hold schools accountable and helps more families escape underperforming schools by expanding alternative education options such as quality charter schools. it also provides states the flexibility to develop their own systems for addressing school performance and the autonomy to use federal funds in the most efficient way. and this bill respects, mr. chair, that it's the people's property, it's their tax dollars. we shouldn't be forcing any kind of maintenance of effort requirement on states or local jurisdictions. it's their decision to decide what to do with their money. with the student success act, we have an opportunity to overcome the failed status quo of high stakes testing and federal waivers. we have the opportunity to redules the federal footprint in the nation's classrooms. we also have the opportunity to signal to people that we trust them to hold schools accountable for delivering a quality education to every

child. as my good friend, former colleague, and fellow hoozier, governor mike pence, said before the committee earlier this month there's nothing that ails education that can't be fixed by giving parents more choices and teachers more freedom to teach. and that's exactly what this bill does. this bill fosters an environment to accomplish that very thing. so i urge my colleagues to join me in replacing a broken law with much-needed commonsense education reforms and ask you to vote yes, yes, on the student success act. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from oregon a member of the committee on education and work force, ms. bonamici. the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized for one minute. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. chair. thank you, mr. ranking member, for yielding. there is overwhelming bipartisan consensus that we need to replace no child left

behind. and there's overwhelming bipartisan consensus that a rewrite of no child left behind should promote local flexibility and support schools not punish them. so i'm deeply disappointed that the house has not come together to produce a bipartisan bill. despite a common goal and a long history of settinging aside differences -- setting aside differences to work together on this important legislation, this bill does not adequately support america's students. unfortunately the student success act shifts resources away from communities where poverty is most concentrated and freezes fundinging for america's most needy -- funding for america's most needing students at a time when public school enrollment is on the rise and more than half the students come from low-income families. h.r. 5 does not support a well-rounded education for all students. does not ensure college and career ready standards. for all students. and does not promote equal after-school programs and does not redo enough to reduce emphasis on high stakes tests. the original goal was audible, equity. and it deserves a full review by the house so we can

implement thoughtful solutions that reflect the current needs in our schools. but this bill does not protect historically underserved students. i oppose this act and i ask my colleagues to do the same. we need a law that is serious about addressing the challenges educators and students face today. thank you mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i now would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, who has been active in this bill mr. culberson. >> mr. -- the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. culberson: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to ask that the -- if i could for the chairman of the early childhood, elementary and secondary education committee engage in a colloquy with me concerning the importance of ensuring the federal government does not interfere with states' rights over public education. . mr. kline: i would be happy to engage in that colloquy.

mr. culberson: mr. speaker, i believe there's no constitutional role for the federal government in education. however, i understand that it's a function of this act to accept it voluntarily by each state but i'm concerned that state bureaucrats often accept the funds without any input from our local elected officials. i saw this in the texas house. i'm pleased that the gentleman from indiana and chairman kline worked with me to protect the 10th amendment and be sure that states knowingly accept the strings attached to these programs before receiving funding under this bill. i want to be clear that this provision simply ensures that locally affected officials and parents have the opportunity to stand up and voice concern or support for accepting federal funding at their state capital before unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat can accept that money and all the strings that come with them. i wanted to ask if the chairman concurs that this is the intent and result of the language you've included in the student

success act. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me thank my colleague from texas for his leadership on this important issue. i understand and appreciate your concern about this federal role in education policy. that is why we were happy to include your amendment in the underlying bill. it made the bill stronger and gave another tool to parents and local officials to protect their rights when it comes to educating our children this amendment in combination with other strong provisions to rein in the secretary including an absolute ban on his ability to force any state to accept any common core standards or other standards ensures the federal government cannot dictate what is taught in schools what assessments or given or what standards are used. this ensures that states willfully accept the limited requirements with these funds and reaffirms what decisions should be left to the states. i thank the gentleman for offering this and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. culberson: i want to thank you for protecting the 10th

amendment rights of the states to control their school system and i affirming a parent's right to control their child's education. it means a far gater role for states and parents in a child's education. i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield one minute to the gentleman from connecticut a member of the committee on education and work forest, mr. courtney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: i hate to throw cold water on the last colloquy but i think it's important to know as we debate this bill that never had the benefit of any public hearing is that the federal mandate for annual testing doesn't change in this law. what does change is the dedicated funding stream which congress had the decency to pass in 2002, is eliminated. you're maintaining a mandate and

eliminating the funding to pay for that mandate for testing. what we're ending up with, for all the talk about reducing the federal footprint is that we're doubling down on the federal requirement that states have to have annual testing in schools which every member in this chamber has heard about in loud protests over the last 13 years. what this shows is that when the process is broken and it was broken in this case, no committee, subcommittee meetings new york hearings, rushing it to the floor, on a hyper partisan basis not one single democratic amendment was accepted at the committee in markup, what you end up with is a deformed bill which should be defeated and i urge in the strongest terms possible, a no vote. let's do this the right way. i yield pack. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i thank the chair and yield myself one minute.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: just to address the notion of what's done in secret and what's not done in secret and whether or not people have had a chance to weigh in on this legislation. as my friend knows, and i do thank him for not mentioning basketball by the way as my friend knows, this bill has been, we've had multiple hearings other several years, it's been debated in committee, been debated on the floor of the house, it's much discussed and mump known. in contrast to the bill, the amendment, the substitute that my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle brought forward in committee 851 pages that nobody had seen outside the democrat caucus. so i believe this bill is well known and it is the right direction to move us forward into the future to make sure that all of our children receive the quality education they deserve and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you mr.

chairman. i yield myself 30 seconds just to respond. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: to the idea that our substitute was produced. i apologize to the gentleman for having sprung the substitute on him however, two legislative days after his bill was introduced, he scheduled a markup on the bill and so we produced a response to his bill in two legislative days and that's all the time we were allowed, we would have allowed hearings, we would have liked hearings on his bill and our bill. but that just wasn't to take place because of the rush to judgment. i yield now three minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, the ranking member of the early childhood, elementary, and secondary education subcommittee, ms. fudge. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. fudge: thank you very much, thank you, mr. chairman. i strongly oppose h.r. 5 the student success act. the elementary and secondary

education act reaffirmed the supreme court decision's in brown vs. board of education that every child has the right to an equal educational opportunity. h.r. 5 undermines the laws -- the law's original intent, turning back the clock on ex-- equity and accountability on american public education. as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of esca republicans have chosen to honor the anniversary by bringing a partisan bill to the house floor that tears apart the historic federal role in education. h.r. 5 should be known as the ensure students don't succeed act. the bill is a backward leap in our country's education system, not a forward one. every student in america has a right to a quality education. it is our job as members of congress to make sure that right is protected. something that h.r. 5 does not do.

i refuse to fail our children and their families because our children deserve so much more than this legislation provides. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very, very pleased now to yield to the chair of the subcommittee on higher education and work forest training, the distinguished gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx four minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. ms. foxx: i thank the chairman of the committee and i thank the chair for the recognition. mr. chairman, the current k-12 education system is failing our students and state and local attempts to make it better have been hampered by an enormous federal footprint. parents and education leaders have lost much of their decision making authority to washington bureaucrats and the secretary of

education has bullied states into adopting the obama administration's pet projects. unsurprisingly, student achievement levels remain worrisome. just 36% of eighth grade students read at grade level and only 35% are proficient in math. for far too long, our schools have been governed by a top-down approach that stymies state and local efforts to meet the unique needs of their student populations. we can't continue to make the same mistakes and expect better results. americans -- america's students deserve change. fortunately, this week, the house of representatives has an opportunity to chart a new course with student success act. legislation that reduces the federal footprint in the nation's classrooms and restores control to the people who know their students best. parents, teachers, and local leaders. the student success act gives washington -- gets washington out of the business of running schools protects state and local autonomy by prohibiting

the secretary of education from coercing states into adopting common core or other common standards and assessment and by preventing the secretary from creating additional burdens on states and school districts. the bill reduces the size of the federal bureaucracy. currently the department of education oversees more than 80 programs geared toward primary and secondary education. most of which are duplicative and fail to deliver adequate results for students. the bill eliminates over 65 of these programs and requires the secretary of education to reduce the department's work forest accordingly. the students success act repeals onerous one size fits all mandates that dictate accountability, teacher quality and local spending that have done more to tie up states and school districts in red tape than to support education efforts. it returns responsibility for classroom decisions to parents, teachers, administrators and education officials. the bill also provides states and school districts the funding flexibility to efficiently and

effectively invest limited taxpayer dollars to boost student achievement by creating a local academic, flexible grant. it provides the public with greater transparency and accountability over the development of new rules affecting k-12 students. education is a deeply personal issue. after years as secretary of education running schools through executive fiat, we understand that people are concerned about what a new law k-12 education law will do. that is why a number of key principles have guided our efforts to replace the law since we began the process more than four years ago resm deucing the federal footprint restoring local control and empowering parents and education leaders. those principles are reflected throughout the legislation including specific safeguards that protect the right of states to opt out of the law as well as the autonomy of homeschools, religious schools and private

schools. organizations such as the council for american private education, homeschool legal defense association and committee on catholic education of u.s. conference of catholic bishops have expressed support for the student success act because they know it will keep the federal government out of their business and preserve their cherished rights. a host of administration bureaucrats are attempting -- is attempting to defeat these much needed changes. they know each reform that returns fleblingsability and choice to parents and school boards represent a loss of pow for the d.c. it's time we put the interests of america's students above the desires of washington politicians. by reversing the top of down policies of recent decades -- the chair: the gentlelady is given an additional minute. ms. foxx: the student says sess act offers conservative solutions to repair broken education system. it would finally get washington out of the way and allow parents, teachers, and state and local education leaders the

flexibility to provide every child in every school a high quality education. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, a member of the committee on education and work forest, mrs. davis. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you ranking member scott. i have to ask the majority, when did local control come to mean spend federal dollars but ditch the federal oversight? during our markup last week, and i certainly heard today, member after member arguing how removing federal standards would help local leaders make tough decisions. this is absolutely backwards. for nine years, i served on the second largest school board in california, the sixth in the nation. and i distinctly remember every school in the district making a

compelling case for ex-para-- extra resources which is why, frankly, we should be debating how to increase the size of the pie that goes to education rather than only arguing on how to cut it up. i still remember particularly one board meeting agonizing over the decision to move money from one needy school to another. we had to cut our budget and we had to make a decision. in the end, the law and the safeguards around title 1 helped direct us to make sure the money went to the students that needed it most. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. davis: ultimately the direction in the law helps us balance competing needs i urge opposition to the bill. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. we are looking for additional speakers who may or may not make it. i know you have additional speakers,'8" reserve.

the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, a member of the committee on education and the work force, mr. takano. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. takano: i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding time. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 5 also known as the student success act. having spent 24 years as a classroom teacher, i'm especially concerned about the title 1 funding mechanism in this legislation. we have seen time and time again that block grants often redirect funding away from intended populations and are a prelude to further cutsism also oppose the republican bill's portability provision which betrays the original intent of the elementary and secondary education act. esca is meant to promote equitable opportunity and education for all and to help raise the academic achievement of low income children.

this legislation will do the opposite. finally irk objects to the utter lack of federal accountability in h.r. 5. while i oppose the current test-driven, high stakes accountability system, i want the right accountability system not no accountability system. mr. speaker, this legislation goes too far. it cuts too deep and takes too many steps backwards i oppose h.r. 5 and call on my colleagues to do the same. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. . mr. kline: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i just wanted to address this issue of grants and block grants and so forth, we're starting to hear a little bit about. i've been hearing for years, as i talk to superintendents in minnesota and around the country their frustration with the maze of federal programs, 80 some federal programs, each

with a soda straw of funding and requirements for action and reporting. and they told me again and again they'd say, i've got money here and don't need it there. i need money here and i can't move that money. i don't have the flexibility to move that money. i need to be able to put the resources where my students need it. and so by eliminating 65 of those soda straws of individual controls and giving that flexibility to superintendents, we allow the money to be spent where it's needed the most. i think that's one of the great strength of this bill and -- strengths of this bill and it's one of the reasons why the american association of school superintendents does support this legislation. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from

wisconsin, a member of the committee on education and work force mr. pocan, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin voiced for one minute. mr. pocan: thank you, ranking member scott. mr. speaker, this bill breaks the promise made 50 years ago to help all kids get a good quality public education and to recognize the challenges faced by kids living in poverty. when talking about the problems with this republican bill, one wonders where to start. is it the tearing apart of public education that comes in the form of dismantling title 1 funding? or the fact that the portability scheme is a slip arery slope -- slippery slope turning our public school system into one big taxpayer funded voucher program with public dollars spent to private schools? or the fact that republicans have failed to dreals the need for early ed -- address the need for early education or the maintenance of efforts for education? or that this bill diminishes the focus on professional development for teachers or the clear protections for collective bargaining

agreements that are already a part of state laws? or that this bill provides insufficient funding, lower than what the title 1 authorization for last year was authorized under the current law? this bill doesn't provide real student success mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i yield the gentlewoman from massachusetts ms. clark, a member of the committee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from -- the chair: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. ms. clark: i thank the gentleman for virginia for yielding. mr. chairman, the elementary and secondary education act was passed 50 years ago to embody the promise that education is a right, not a privilege. we are supposed to be guardians of that promise. not the architects of its demise. this re-authorization was an

opportunity for congress to delve in and debate the most pressing issues facing our schools. sadly, the republican majority chose to introduce a partisan bill behind closed doors without a single public hearing. now we have a bill that reflects that lack of inclusion, takes hundreds of millions of dollars from our most vulnerable children and weakens the safeguards that govern taxpayer money. when i served on my local school committee, a tough economy meant some really difficult decisions. not everyone was happy, but we listened. we listened to teachers administrators, parents, students, experts and fiscal watchdogs. and we were guided by one simple principle -- what's best for our students? it's a shame congress couldn't find the will to do the same. i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 5. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i

yield to the gentlewoman from north carolina, a former college professor and now a member of the committee on education and work force, ms. adams, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. adams: thank you, ranking member scott. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 5. two weeks ago our committee came together expecting to seriously consider this bill, but instead republicans said no. no to moving beyond the status quo, no to investing in the futures of our kids, no to supportinging our teachers and principals, and no to ensuring the success of our neediest students. guess what? you said yes to taking money from our poor students like robin hood in reverse, yes to erasing the gains we've made over the past 50 years and yes to denying student success. this bill ignores the obvious needs of our students, turns its back on some of our most vulnerable. i hope we're not fooled by the name of the bill. student success is a failure. it's clearly -- it clearly sets up our students to fail. h.r. 5 fails on all accounts. it fails our neediest students,

it fails to invest in our teachers and our principals. it fails to prepare students for college and careers. this bill deserves an f. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina yields. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, could you advise how much time is available on both sides. the chair: the gentleman has 16 minutes remaining. 15 minutes, excuse me. mr. scott: and the gentleman from minnesota? the chair: 13 minutes. mr. scott: thank you. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from rhode island, a former mayor, mr. cicilline, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it's our responsibility to provide america's young people with every opportunity to obtain a world class education in the best possible environment so they can compete in an increasingly global economy. that's why it's critical that we re-authorize esca the right

way. schools and educators deserve certainty, continuity and direct -- grex. based on new research -- direction. based on research. and students deserve the best education we can provide. but h.r. 5 is not the right way to do it. h.r. 5 would freeze funding at current levels for six years, representing over $800 million in cuts compared to pre-sequester funding. by funding programs with block grants and introducing title 1 portability this fails to support greater acheekment of low-income students students of color students with disabilities and english language learners. this fails students in so many ways. we should be working together to ensu ae-thiz cprestu hiemt,uprttehe and principals and provides high-quality education for all students. this bill does not accomplish this and i urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you mr.

chairman. mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee on labor, health, human services and education, ms. delauro, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: thank you. upon signing the original elementary and secondary education act, president johnson described education as quote, the only valid passport from poverty. this bill threatens to tear up that passport. it caps federal education funding at 2015 levels, levels which are already woefully inadequate after years of drastic cuts. makes no provisions for inflation. let alone growing need for federal education programs. the bill allows states to direct federal dollars away from schools in districts with the greatest poverty. it permits states to reduce education funding with no accountability. it allows schools in wealthier neighborhoods to use title 1 funding without having to target funds to the students

with the greatest needs. it is a blatant betrayal of the esca's fundamental purpose which is to level the playing field for low-income kids. it weakens or eliminates many successful programs, 21st century community learning center initiative, provides quality after-school, summer school programs for disadvantaged children. mr. speaker, it used to be that hard work in school and on the job was the surest ticket to the middle class. today that compact is broken. millions of hardworking families do not earn enough to make ends meet. let alone move up in the world. the cuts proposed in this bill would make matters even worse. kids from poor neighborhoods are already being neglected. while those from wealthy areas get an ever-increasing slice of the pie. these disparities reverberate throughout their lives, they create an incorrespondencing -- increasingly divided, unequal society. let me put it simply. without broad access to quality education, there is no future for the middle class.

with this legislation, the majority are saying to america's low-income kids, you are on your own. mr. speaker, that is not who we are. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired or yields. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. now i'm very pleased to yield to a new member of the committee the gentleman from michigan, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 5, the student success act. because our system -- education system is failing. where i come from we call trying to do things over and over again and expectinging a different outcome in-- expecting a different outcome insanity. i believe our system is broken to the extent that it's a moral

imperative for congress at this point to step up and act. our students, our parents, our teachers should not have to settle for a failing system. before congress i worked in the private sector and also had an opportunity to speak -- excuse me, to work in state government, including the opportunity to serve as the majority leader of the michigan senate. at that time i saw firsthand how much more effective we can be at the state level to use state resources and control where they're going than to have the federal government come in, step in and use and expect the state to spend it in a certain way. mr. bishop: this system of top-down, it does not help the stateses, it puts us -- states, it puts us in a bad position. had i had the opportunity, i would have come here in support of the cause as well because i believe it's the right thing to do. i believe it's high time we defend the 10th amendment and rein back the federal government's role, especially in our children's education.

local teachers and parents know that our children are -- know our childrenen better than the department of education -- children better than the department of education in washington, d.c. ever could. and the result is that our system is broken and that becomes clearer and clearer every day. i just want to mention a couple of statistics that i find alarming. but instructive. first of all, 35% of our fourth graders are reading at a proficient level. only 26% of our high school seniors are proficient in math. just a couple examples that i mentioned, those examples are unacceptable. mr. kline: i yield an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. bishop: thank you. the student success act gives back authority to our states and expands opportunities to our children -- so our children can get the best education opportunity possible. that's what they deserve and that's why i was sent to washington, d.c., to support. this bill is also critical in

ensuring the federal government cannot force a failed program like common corps, on the states. -- common core, on the states. it's also important to make sure we protect the rights of our home schoolers and our private schools, that's exactly what this bill does. mr. speaker, we must reduce the federal government's footprint in our children's classrooms because it's making a mess of the education system. we are long overdue for change and i believe the student success act will move our nation in the right direction. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chairman, because this bill limits the amount of funding available, it moves money from low-income areas to wealthy areas eliminates targeted funds for english learners and those with disabilities it fails to set meaningful standards a lot of organizations oppose the

legislation, including business organizations, child advocacy groups, civil rights groups organizations supporting those with disabilities and health groups, including the congressional track caucus, the advocacy institute, the after-school alliance, the american association of people with disabilities, the american association of university women, the american fedcation of -- federation of teachers, the american foundation for the blind the association of university centers on disabilities autism national committee autistic self-advocacy network, the center for american progress the center for law and social policy the children's defense fund, the committee for education funding, the consortium of citizens with disabilities, the council on great city schools, the council of parent attorneys and advocates incorporated, democrats for education reform disabilities rights education

defense fund, easter seals, education post, education law center, first focus campaign for children, gay, lesbian and straight education network, human rights campaign, the center for mental health law, lawyers committee for civil rights under law, leading educators, the league for united latin american citizens, the mexican american legal defense on education fund, the naacp, the naacp legal defense on education fund, the national association of school psychologists national center for learning disabilities, the national council on independent living, national council on teacher quality, the national center on time and learning, national congress of american indians national council of loraza, the national coalition for public education, the national disability rights network, national down syndrome congress, the national

education association, the national urban league, the national women's law center, parents for each and every child, poverty and race research action council, public advocates incorporated, stand for children southeast asia resource action center, teacher plus, new teacher project, education trust, united negro college fund, the leadership conference on civil and human rights and the u.s. chamber of commerce all in opposition to this legislation. . i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you mr. chairman, we are expecting another speaker, en route so i'd like to -- do you have other speakers? yes, you do i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves, the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you. mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from alabama

ms. sewell. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sewell: thank you, mr. speaker. i often don't come to the floor to speak, but i felt compelled on this particular bill, h.r. 5 to talk about it. why? because i represent a district that has 90% of the public schoolchildren live and receive reduced or free lunch. and it's important for me to just state for the record that i think that a bill that takes away funding from public schools and targeted funding for low-income and poverty students would be an abomination. this bill is here because the work of lyndon johnson 50 years ago. it was a civil rights bill, frankly. why? it was an acknowledgment that socially disadvantaged children needed additional help. somewhere along the line, mr. speaker we've lost, as a

nation, the notion of our children. it's always my child. not our children. until the person who lives in high income sees -- mr. scott: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. sewell: until the parents of more affluent children see that their lives are intricately linked to children that are poor we as a nation will never be the beloved community that so many civil rights leaders fought and died for. so i want to thank the gentleman from virginia for the opportunity to speak on this underlying bill and i want to urge my colleagues to vote against h.r. 5. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the committee

the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i also want to thank the gentleman from minnesota for his work on this bill. very important bill. certainly very applicable to what is going on in our country right now. federal intervention in our nation's classrooms is at an all-time high and the obama administration continues to believe that they think they know what is best for our children. however, despite continued intrusion into our children's classrooms, student achievement remains stagnant. out of 34 countries students in the u.s. ranked 30th and 27th in science and math respectively. it's clear our education system is not adequately serving our children and it's not going to be fixed by washington bureaucrats. our education system can only be fixed by parents, teachers, aunts, uncles coaches, community leaders. the people who actually know

what is best for our nation's children. that's why i'm supporting h.r. 5. i'm supporting this bill to put some refraints on -- restraints on the administration, rein in the department of education and put key os our children's education and future back in local control where it belongs. it repeals out of touch teacher qualification programs and allows state and local officials to determine who is qualified to coach their children. it also eliminates 65 programs and creates a brand program with greater flexibility for school districts. we all know that children learn differently and at their own pace and without this bill, the secretary of education could prohibit funds from being sent to states unless they adopt certain one size fits all standards like common core. i will be the first one to say that additional reforms are -- to our education system are feeded. no this is not the silver bullet. but it is a great start.

and it is a great bill. mr. speaker, i support this bill and urge all my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i want to state for the record, mr. chairman that graduation rates are up in the last, since no child left behind was passed, black and latino children are doing better. the -- and so it has been working but we need to continue to improve. mr. chairman, i'd like to read the statement of administration policy that speaks to the administration position on h.r. 5. the statement of policy goes as follows. administration strongly opposes h.r. 5 the student success act as approved by the house committee on education and the

work forest. -- work force. congress must act in a bipartisan way to reform elementary and secondary act of 1965. it helps by giving them flexibility from no child left behind mandates. however it represents a step backwards in helping the state's families prepare for children's future. it -- part of the legislation is to ensure that all -- it fails to maintain the core expectation that states and school districts will take serious sustained and targeted actions when necessary to remedy achievement gaps and reform persistently low-performing schools. h.r. 5 fails to identify opportunity dwaps and remedy inequities and access to

resources and support students' needs to succeed such as challenging academic courses, excellent teachers and principals, after school enrichment or expanded learning time and other academic and nonacademic supports, rather than investing in more schools, h.r. 5 would allow states to divert education funding away from schools and students who need it the most through the so-called portability provision. the bill's caps on federal education spending would lock in recent budget cuts for the rest of the decade when it allow funds to be used for education to be used for other purposes such as spending on sports stadiums or tax cut for the wealthy. h.r. 5 fails to make critical investments for the nation's students including high quality preschool for america's students and investment and innovative solutions for the public education system. if the administration agrees on

the need for high quality statewide annual testing as required in h.r. 5 so parents and teachers know how children and schools are doing from year to year and allow for consistent measurement of school and student performance across the state. however this bill would -- this bill should do more to reduce redundant and unnecessary testing such as asking states to limit the amount of time spent on standardized testing and require notification when it's consuming too much classroom learning time. the administration opposes h.r. 5 in its current form for all these reasons but particularly because it would deny federal funds to the classrooms that need it the most and fails to assure parents that policymakers and educators will take action when students are not learning. the president were presented with h.r. 5, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. i yield back.

mr. kline: i understand the gentleman yields back? mr. scott: no, i reserve. mr. kline: ok mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee on work forest protection -- work force protections, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. since no child left behind was put in place the federal government has dictated how states and school districts spend money, gauge student learning and school performance and hire classroom teachers and frank -- and frankly mr. speaker, it isn't working. washington bureaucrats new york matter how well meaning they are, will never have the same personal understanding of the diverse and special and unique needs of students and teachers, administrators parents, who spend time with them. mr. speaker, i stand here today

because i have to speak for aaron and moses. aaron is -- for erin and moses. erin is my daughter-in-law and the mother of my four grandchildren. moses was a student that tested her teaching ability and her passion for teaching. erin came to teach in a classroom, fourth and fifth grade classroom, special needs students in cicero illinois. freshly minted out of her educational training, masters program, she came in with a passion for teaching. she came in because she was sent in that classroom as a full-time continuing substitute because the teacher of that classroom had gotten up one day walked out of the classroom and never came back. erin was given the opportunity of a lifetime, to teach these students and she began to

invest her life into those students, especially one young student, fourth grader, by the name of moses. moses came from a difficult situation. moses at that time new york fourth grade, wasn't even fully potty trained. but erin invested her time and talent and frankly her treasure into the life of that student as well as the others. had wonderful outcomes in working with the parent in the home as well as with moses in the classroom. the next year, erin was given the opportunity to be a full-time teacher. not a sub anymore. and i'll never forget the day when she came to me and said dad -- she had tears in her eyes he, said i'm not sure i'm cut out for teaching. i said why? you had an amazing impact for the six months of time you spent in that same classroom last year. she said now all i'm doing is filling out paperwork, for illinois for chicago and for the federal government.

she ultimately had our twin grandsons and went from the classroom to the home. but there will be a day that comes when those four kids are at the stage and she can go back to the classroom. i want erin to go back and have the ability to teach, to love on those kids, to direct them and work with the parents, not spend time filling out bureaucratic forms. that's why i support the student success act. it replaces federal control with state and local control. the bill allows states to establish -- the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman for one minute. mr. walberg: to establish and implement their own standards and assessments, allows states to development their own accountability plans by eliminating federally prescribed school improvement and turnaround interventions. it provides state and local school districts flexibility. mr. speaker, that's what we're speaking for. that's for the erins and moses

of the world and educational opportunities that should lead us to the future in great ways for this country, to lead the world, this is what we're talking about, mr. speaker. the students success act places control back in the hands of education's rightful stewards, the teachers. the administration. the -- the administrators. the states, the parents and ultimately the students. let's pass this bill and i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. . mr. scott: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i just wanted to end -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the consortium of citizens with

disabilities says the students with success act creates incentives to take students with disabilities unchecked, off track from having access and achieving a regular high school dip plomea. less than 1% of all students have a significant disability which corresponds to 10% of students with disabilities. without this limitation, we fear schools may inappropriately assign schools to alternative assessments. that assignment to these alternative assessments may lead to reduced access to general curriculum and limit a student's access to earn a regular diploma. that's why the disability groups oppose the legislation. i just want to end with a reminder, this limits the funding and transfers money from

low-income areas to high-income areas and that's not just urban areas. there are 2,400 low-income rural districts that will will lose over 150 -- $150 million, 15% of their allocation under the current law, they will lose in rural areas. the legislation eliminates targeting for english learners and those with disabilities and it fails to set meaningful standards and for those standards we should join the administration in opposing h.r. 5. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: h the chair: the chair recognizes the the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i yield myself the balance of our time. as is always the case, we hear a lot of things, some of them are actually factual some of them are not. there is some things that come

along with this. we did hear some things from both sides of the aisle that are worth underscoring. one of the other speakers talked about how schools and states need continuity, i think was his word, predictability. and that's what we do not have now. right now, this country is operating under the law of the land, which is no child left behind. and under a big convoluted scheme of contemporary conditional waivers which provide no continuity, no predictability. and that's why we are hearing on both sides of the aisle from coast-to-coast and off the coast, as a matter of fact, that we need to replace no child left behind. and we believe i believe as we replace no child left behind, that we need to put responsibility in the hands of

parents and teachers and school boards and states and not in the hands of washington, d.c. i think that it's not fair to say that there's not a problem. we heard from the ranking member that graduation rates had gone up. on the other hand, they hadn't gone up much. and we're still in the position where 26% of high school students are -- 26% high school seniors are not pro efficient and only 38 -- only 26% are pro efficient in math 74% -- maybe i need to have a little math -- only 38% of those high school seniors can read at grade level. we have a problem and we need to address that problem.

we heard that a lot of talk about how -- where title 1 funds go and portability of public schools, and it's a question i understand and we believe it's fair if you are eligible for title 1 funds you ought to get those funds. there's a disagreement. i think that the children, if they're eligible, if they're in poverty, that they ought to get their share of title 1 funds. one of the things we didn't talk much about today as we talk about the problems out there, we know that in some areas of the country, you have children trapped in absolutely failing schools, where less than half of the kids that graduate. and those who graduate are nowhere near ready to go to college or go to work. we have seen across the state and across the country and in most states, charter schools public charter schools popping

up. and giving parents hope, giving them a chance to get those kids out of failing schools. i said the other day in the rules committee, because it was so moving to me, i went to a charter school in north minneapolis, 430 kids in that school, their parents are delighted with the education they're getting now and thrilled to have gotten their kids out of failing schools and when i asked the principal and founder of the school if she could take more kids she said no, this is the right size for this school. they would like to replicate this school and that's what this bill allows and how successful is it? there are 1,000 kids 1,000 kids on the witnessing list to get into that charter schools because parents want to get out of failing schools. this bill allows this to happen. it comes down to, who do you trust? parents or local governments? we want to put the control in

>> i think we take a full appreciation of what we're facing. and i believe that we give the president the options necessary in order to deal with the emergency. and enduring might only be two weeks. but enduring might be two years. we need to make sure we put the right resources against the contingency and give us the amount of time necessary, us being all of the american people, the time necessary to solve the problem. >> and i think you've obviously stated the challenge that we have. two weeks is one thing, two years is another. and this is the problem with the language as it exists. there is no clear defining element of the authorization given to the president in which hundreds but maybe tens of thousands of troops could be sent. they could be sent for long periods of time. that's a challenge. so how we get our arms around that, you know, i think i can

fairly speak for democrats. we want to fight isil. but we can't provide a blank check to this or any future president, because everything that's envisioned goes beyond this president. i wanted to use your expertise to put my arms around it. following up on the chairman's questions, isn't it basically true that unless we buy into something that is about getting rid of assad turkey is not really going to engage here with us in the way that we want them to? >> the turks have not indicated that to me in our conversation. i think we share the same goal with respect to syria, that is that the solution to syria is not going to be determined by military force. that ultimately we desire a military outcome in syria that is one of the syrian people and that outcome does not include bashar al assad. but i have not had the

requirement that we take concerted effort against bashar al assad as a precondition for the turks to have any greater role in the coalition to deal with isil. >> isn't it true that turdy at this point is still allowing foreign fighters to cross its borders into syria? >> if foreign fighters get across the border, it's not because the turks allow it. i had a conversation with them yesterday. i've watched them grip the problem. it is a greater problem that me of us had imagined at the beginning. they've attempted to strengthen their border crossing protocols. we're seeking greater intelligence sharing with them in that regard. we're restructuring some elements of the coalition, specifically to focus the capabilities of nations on the issue of the movement and the dealing of foreign fighters through transit states of which the turks are going to play an important role in that process

within the coalition. do foreign fighters cross turkey and get into syria? yes, they do. do the turks permit that? i don't think so. >> one final question. iran is in the midst of iraq. it's in the midst of syria. do we share mutual goals with iran? >> well i'll say that our goals with respect to iraq is that we return iraq to the sovereign control of the people and the government. >> do you think the iranians share that view? >> i believe so. i believe the iranians would believe that their interests -- would consider their interests are best served -- >> because they have significant influence in iraq? >> they have regional interest

and those interests are in iraq. that's not something that should surprise us or necessarily alarm us. >> i'm looking beyond. so if we think an accommodation with iran to fight isil is good, the aftermath of that in iraq, in syria, in yemen and elsewhere in my view is not so good. so times we look at the short game versus the long one and i'm concerned about what the long one is. >> i would not propose that we're accommodating iran and iraq at this moment. we're undertaking the measures that we're undertaking in iraq with the iraqis. but as you have pointed out and your question presupposed, the iranians have an interest in the stable iraq, just as we in the region have an interest in the stable iraq. that doesn't mean we're accommodating the iranians by the measures we're taking in iraq. >> general allen, thank you for

your service. i do not envy your task. in your testimony you say that isis has lost half of its iraq based leadership. how do we know that? >> i'm sorry, say again your question, sir. >> you say that isis has lost half of its iraq-based leadership? how do we know that? do we have pretty good intelligence on this? >> we actually do have pretty good intelligence on this matter. the process of tracking the elements within the senior esh longs of isil's leadership we've been tracking them and dealing with them. >> in the last six months you we've aptly demonstrated that isil now finds itself under pressure. how many people are coming into the battle, actually being drawn and recruited by what they see in isis versus the people that

really are dying? >> well i think that's a difficult number to -- >> is it positive or negative? are more people joining the fight versus what we're able to -- >> i would say two things. the numbers are up and they're up because we ooh now tracking the numbers in ways that we haven't before. i think the numbers are also up because of the caliphate. and that has created a magnetism for those elements that want to be part of this, that want to support this, this emergence within their own sense of their faith. and so that has created a recruiting opportunity for isil that they had not had before. so we're going to continue to track those numbers. it's not just a matter of dealing with those numbers in the battle space. we're dealing with those numbers by virtue of taking other measures. as my testimony indicated, we

operate along five lines of effort. the military line is one of them. another line where we'll be seeing more traction be realized as time goes on will be the consortium of nations that have taking the necessary steps to make it difficult to be recruited in a country, to transit out of that country and ultimately get to the battle space. plus, as isil, the so-called caliphate as it continues and receive blow after blow, using that to message what this organization is to decrease its attractiveness to other those that might otherwise be attracted. it would take all of those measures in concert. >> that leads to me next question. defeat sounds good. but can you describe what defeat looks like? >> it is that this organization has been rendered ineffective in its capability of being an external threat to iraq. we're not going to eradicate or annihilate isil.

most of the organizations that we've dealt with before, there will be some residue of that organization for a long period of time to come. but with we don't want it to be abilities to threaten iraq ore other states in the region. we want to generate funding which limits dramatically its operational decision-making and capabilities to affect discretion with respect to its recruiting and battlefield capabilities. we want to compete with it and ultimately overcome or defeat its message in the information sphere where it's assured significant capability. we know how we want to deal with them in the financial sphere and the information sphere and all of those together constitute --

will constitute the defeat of isil. >> you mentioned the establishment of the caliphate the article in the atlantic really laid out that that is a draw, that is a pull, that establishes a certain benchmark, a certain motivation for people being recruited. it relies on territorial gains or holding on territory. is that part of defeat, deny them territory. >> absolutely. >> so that that caliphate no longer exists? we're talking about december -- decimation. that's what secretary kerry -- that was the word he used, decimate. kind of like after nazi germany, people scattered around the world. that's not what i'm hearing from you. >> decimation is clearly one of the terms that we might apply to it. we want them to have in operational capability in the end. break them up into small

organizations that don't have the capacity as it begins to attempt to mass to be a threat. >> define a small organization. again, i'm just trying to get some sense of what we mean by defeat. it sounds great, deny them operational capabilities. are we talking about taking 30,000 down to 500? >> it will take time. it will take time that will ultimately be realized in a number of ways, breaking up the organization through kinetic and military service means, it will take time to reduce the message and the attractiveness that gives it the capacity to regenerate its forces, it will take time to deny it to the international financial system that gives it the capability of restoring itself or generating capabilities. all of those things together, if we deny the access, defeat their information, break them up into small groups, then that's defeat. >> i'm out of time.

thank you, general. >> senator carden. >> thank you very much for your continued service to our country. these are extremely challenges times and we're very proud of your leadership. >> thank you, sir. >> you're urging us to be patient, that this is going to take some time in order to achieve our mission of not only degrading but destroying and defeating isil. you believe, as i understand that the authorizations previously passed by congress give the administration the authorizations for use of force. but i also understand you support the president's request to congress? >> i do. i do, sir. >> and of course the president's request for congress is pretty specific on isil and expires in three years. it's clear that there may well be a need for a continued military presence beyond that

three years. >> i would say probably a need for military activity, u.s. activity in some form or another, yes, sir. >> and i think that's an honest assessment. >> sure. >> and if i understand the reasoning behind the request is that the current administration recognizes it will be up to the next administration to come back to get the next congress and administration together on the continued commitment to fight terrorists and what use of force will be necessary. >> i can't answer that precisely but it would seem that's a logical reason for that. >> so my point is, why doesn't that also apply to 2001 authorization of force? here we're talking about a threat that was identified last year that we are currently combating, recognizing that the campaign or use of force may well go beyond three years.

but it's the prerogative of the next congress and administration to define the authorizations that are needed. the 2001 authorization, which was passed against a known threat against the united states and afghanistan now still being used to a threat such as isil, wouldn't the same logic apply that congress should define the 2001 authorization contemporary with the current needs to go after al qaeda? >> i've traveled to many of the capitals of this coalition and one of the things that has been clear to me as i have traveled to these capitals has been the really substantial gratitude of the coalition for american leadership. and the willingness for america to act. and in so many ways, these

nations, the coalition, see isil in a very different way than they ever saw al qaeda. they're grateful for our leadership and our willingness to act. and i believe that that aumf which is specifically tailored to isil, with a strong support of the congress, gives not just the president the options that are necessary ultimately to deal with this new and unique threat, but it also reinforces the image of the american leadership that i think is so deeply wanted by our partners and so deeply needed by this country and ultimately by the coalition to deal with isil the way we want to. >> and i understand that and it's limited to three years. >> that's right. >> would you agree that our success in iraq in dealing with isil very much depends upon the sunni tribes taking a leadership role in stopping the advancement

of isil, that it's difficult for the shiites and the western force to be able to get the type of confidence in the community to with stand the recruitments of isil? >> i put it slightly differently. i would absolutely agree with you. but i think it takes decisive sunni leadership as well within iraq. but the tribes will be essential to the outcome. your question is correct, sir. >> what is your confidence level in the government of iraq and baghdad and its ability to work with the sunni tribal leaders to give them the confidence that their centralized government represents their interest and protects their interest? >> it's a hard sale, senator. because previously we asked the sunni tribes to trust the central government in baghdad under maliki. it didn't work out too well for them. but i've met with them and been

pleased frankly, very pleased at their willingness to accept the leadership of prime minister abadi and the minister of the interior and helping them to be a principle mechanism. that has been an encouraging sign for me, frankly, to see them not just as a group of tribes but also as leaders of the tribes be public and forthcoming in their willingness to support the central government in iraq and in particular prime minister abadi. >> i really do appreciate your service. >> yes, sir. >> senator paul. >> general allen, thanks for your testimony. what percentage would you say is an estimate of how many of the official iraqi army are sunni versus shiite?

>> i'll have to take the question. the standing army, the prepond dance is the majority is shia. i'll take the question. >> it's on the hills of what senator carden is asking. global security reports 780% to 90% of the iraqi army being shia. i think to have an enduring victory there's some question whether you can have an enduring victory and occupy mosul. so i think that still is a significant political problem and a significant military problem as well. of the chieftans that fought in the surnl, what percentage are engaged on our side now fight against isis, what percentage on the shrines and what percentage indifferent? >> those are numbers that are difficult to give you with any precision. the ones i fought alongside in

'07 and '08, the ones i've spoken to without exception have indicated their desire to fight, to recover their lands, to ultimately return to the tribes and ultimately to iraq. they've been forthcoming in their desire to do that. >> and the chief tans are no longer in the area? >> many of them are. some at great risk traveled out of the area it mately to speak with us. but they are. and many of them are in ie man and they're in other places. >> with regard to arming the kurds, there were reports a month or two ago that germany wanted to send arms directly to them but there were objections by our government saying everything had to go to baghdad. are the arms forced to go through baghdad to get the kurds? >> i'll take the question but let me offer this. baghdad has not disapproved any request that the kurds have made for weapons.

we have attempted to work with baghdad to streamline to the maximum extent possible to reduce any delays that may inhibit or impair the expeditious delivery of arms and equipment to the kurds. >> do you think this includes sufficient technology and long range weaponry to meet their needs and their requests? >> all that is coming. as you know, sir, through the support of the congress we're training and equipping 12 iraqi brigades, and the peshmerga brigades will be armed and equipped with the same sophisticated weapons that the other brigades will receive. >> is there any possibility that any of that could be transported to the kurds? >> that's a question we should pose to the department of defense but i'll take the question. >> thank you. with regard to ultimate victory,

with regard to trying to get turkey involved, do you think there's any possibility of an agreement wean the turks and the kurds, particularly the turkish kurds to accept and agreement where there would be a kurdish homeland not in turkish territory that would encourage turkey then to participate more heavily and is anybody in the state department trying to come to an accommodation between the turks and the kurds? >> not to my knowledge. >> take that message to them too, please. thank you. >> senator if i may, on the one comment that you made to the shia and iraqi security forces the actions that are going to be taken in these towns are going to be more than simply those of the clearing force. what's going to be important to recognize is there will be follow along after the clearing force.

we're working closely with the iraqis for the hold force which will be hopefully the sunni police which will actually secure and provide support to the iraqi population that will just have been liberated. the governance element, the most important aspect of the clearance, the immediate humanitarian assistant necessary to provide for relief of the populations. it's more complexion than just the clearing force. while we may have to accept that there is a large presence of the shia elements within the iraqi military, i know that there's a very strong effort under way to ensure that the sunnis are deeply entangled where in all of the other aspects of the recovery of the population. >> one quick follow-up to that. i think you might get more support from the sunni people if

you were leafletting the place saying it's led by sunni generals. i think our problem was mosul was being occupied by a shiite force and they didn't say long once push came to shove they were pretty much gone. thank you. >> senator markey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. thank you, general, so much for your service. in the authorization for the use of military force text that the administration provided to this committee, it said it would prohibit enduring ground forces. and this was meant to convey that large numbers of troops wouldn't be on the ground for a long time. whatever that means. i voted for the 2001 resolution

and i'm reminded that the u.s. combat operations in afghanistan were dubbed operation enduring freedom. we are now past 13 years in that enduring fight and that resolution, of course, was also the basis for the justification of our actions in somalia, in yemen and the administration is saying quite clearly that they oppose the repeal of that. and that the operations that are going on right now in fact are consistent with that 2001 resolution. now that causes great problems to me and i think many members of the committee. because even in the absence of the passage of a new aumf, the administration is maintaining that they have the authority to continue as they have for 13 years under operation enduring freedom.

and so that obviously is a problem for us, because that sits there as an underlying authority for the next president, democrat or republican, who is sworn in on january 20th, 2017. and most of us will be sitting here at that time as your successor is sitting here. and perhaps not with the same interpretation of the word enduring. so my questions then go to, is this going to open up a potential for an open-ended war in the middle east? will it allow for unfettered deployment of ground troops? and ultimately whether or not we are opening up pandora's box especially in syria. so my first question to you goes to president assad and what the goal will be underneath this authorization in terms of the

removal of president assad which has been historically an so could you tell us what president assad and his removal represents as one of the goals that exists in training 5,000 troops in syria for the next three years in a row, as the long term objective after the defeat of isis? >> well, our political goal, the policy goal ultimately is that the process of change of assad's departure should occur through a political process and that ultimately he should depart and not be part of the future of the political landscape in syria. the role of the tne program is