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

to first and foremost, give those elements of the moderate syrian opposition we're supporting the capacity to defend themselves, to build battlefield acredibility and ultimately to use those elements and forces to deal with stash and the context of the strategy to deal with stash. at the same time we're building that capacity, our hope would be to build within the political esh long, a sophistication that the two together, the political and the military esh lon are the critical force that will have a place at the table during the political process that will see the replacement of assad. >> it seems to me that's a ten-year proposition. and if that's the case, we should be talking in a ten-year period. we can finish iraq over the next three years, but then that's a much longer process and we should just understand what the

long term goal requires of us inside syria. and just saying assad's name over and over again will help us focus on the ultimate objective that the free syrian army is going to have in that country and then what we're signing up for in terms of the long term military effort inside of that country. and if i -- and i thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to ask this one final question, which is, the basic tension that king abdullah was talking about, which is that of the americans providing help to fight the war but not claiming credit, so it does not look like a kru said inside that region, can you talk about that so that the people in the region do not view this as a u.s.led coalition against isil because ultimately that then

comes back to haunt us. that was the message that we were receiving from all across the middle east. >> well i think, senator, king abdullah of jordan has been very clear throughout the period of this coalition that in the end the solution to the problems of the region must not only look like but must be the function of those states within the region to take concerted action supported by the united states and supported by a broader global coalition for those concerted actions to be successful. it's very important obviously that the solution have an arab face and a muslim voice with respect to dealing with the so-called caliphate and all that it has brought to the region. and the king and other muslim and arab leaders in the region have been very clear on the

desire that they -- not just appear but really are exercising leadership frontally in this process. >> i don't think the people in that region view it that way. but it has to be our goal. we have to switch it so that it's not us. senator paul was referring to that, that it has to be an indig enous muslim-led effort and i don't think right now that's the internal view. thank you. >> senator isaacson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general allen, thank you for your service to the country. i followed you closely on tv the last couple of months and i think you've done a great job. we're operating under the 2001 amuf. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> would it be fair to say that the one the president sent to us to consider is actually eliminating amuf compared to the 2001 authorization? >> it is specifically intended to deal with the threat of isil, that's correct

>> but it's limiting in the authority of the president would have primarily by the interpretation of the enduring phrase, is that correct? >> enduring and the expectation as he's described it in the proposed legislation on the size and kinds of forces that might be applied, measures that might be applied, is that correct? >> i voted for the 2001 authorization when i was here. it came on the heels of 9/11/2001. it was passed at a time when americans had flags raised and the patriotism in our country was at an all-time high, at least in my lifetime and my memory. are we going to have to wait for that type of event to happen before we use whatever it take to destroy this evil? meaning isil and those like them? >> i think we're taking those measures now to get after the evil that is isil. it's an evil we haven't seen

before in a very long time. just today the fbi rolled up three individuals in this country that were intent of joining isil in the battle space or doing ill to the american people. and as long as we're at the front edge of this taking those kinds of measures, we have the boss oblt of keeping it from becoming something like a 9/11. >> in your printed statement and i presume it's part of your remarks you said verbally, you said it will be the aggregate pressure of the coalition's activity over the mutual supported lines of effort that will determine a campaign's success. >> that's right. >> what are the mutually supported lines that you're speaking about? >> working more aligned in the community of nations, to limit the flow of foreign fighters, to deal with the measures to take the measures necessary to deal with the ability to limit isil's capacity to generate revenue ultimately to support its operations and to give it

discretion to take action against us or potentially or allies. to provide support to those elements of the population in the region that have been displaced by virtue of the activities of isil or have been directedly suppressed by the boot of isil's conquests and sub -- and then very importantly to work together to, in the information space, ultimately to defeat the idea of dash. and the coalition is working very hard. i've just come back from southeast asia where i met with the leadership of several countries there. they're watching with great interest and concern those things that are occurring in the middle east, which could spread into their region, and they're interested in joining us in ways that can limit the ability of those organizations there to travel to the battle space or to limit their ability to directly

challenge the authorities of those countries. so it's not just the countries of the middle east, it's not just the countries of europe it's the countries of southeast asia. and very importantly within the confines of effort. working closely to outreach the indigenous populations of the country in ways that the can dispel the image of the caliphate. in ways to work with the religious leaders and tribal leaders in those countries with populations that may be at risk, to work with teachers and clerics and families to reduce the attraction to this extremist message. and the combination of all of those activities together we think will pressure and ultimately put the kinds of pressure on dash first to defend ourselves and ultimately to defeat the organization. >> on that point and very briefly because my time will be up in 45 seconds. >> yes, sir. >> are we doing enough to counter act the use of social media and technology to

communicate exactly what you're talking about? what you heard about in southeast asia and what i've heard from on trips i've taken is the fear they'll use social media and the modern mechanisms that we have today to spread their ideology and fear around the world >> they're doing it now. it is in fact an explicit objective within our evers among -- efforts among the many nations involved to do just that. obviously in nations where free speech is an issue, that we have to accommodate that aspect of our relationship with industry that owns these platforms to ensure that we're either able to intradict that message or work with industry to remove the message many its own content. we're working closely with industry and with our partners to counter that message across all of the social media. >> thank you for your time and your service.

>> thank you, sir. >> thank you. senator boxer. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, ranking member menendez. general, thank you so much for your dedication to this nation. i want to thank the president for the wisdom he showed in appointing you as the special envoy. i find your presentation to be very direct, no frils, just straightforward and i appreciate it. under article one, section eight, congress has the power to declare war. i know you agree with that, yes? >> yes, ma'am. >> so i hope you can then understand what we would want to be very precise when we do that. because we're sent here by a lot of people who have a lot of kids who serve in the military. and they're the fabric of our community. so we want to be careful. and i just want to say i'm not even going to ask you to expand on this enduring word because you've said it very clearly.

your definition is no enduring presence could mean a two week presence of american combat boots on the ground or a two-year presence of american combat boots on the ground. and that answers a question the democrats on this committee have been searching for this deaf -- defnition. and i think what you have proven with your honesty here is that there is none. because it's the eye of the beholder. when you say to me if i vote for this no enduring combat presence and i'm sending my kids there in any state for two years, i would argue with you, you've misinterpreted it. yet, the congressional research service says there's really no definition and if i wanted to take an administration to court because i would say as a member of congress i said no enduring presence, crs says i wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on because this's no definition.

so i just think it's very important the administration hear this once again. i know poor secretary kerry had to hear it over and over again from our side yesterday. but we're very uncomfortable with this language. and when senator menendez was chairman, he cobbled together a good amuf that united all of us on our side because he essentially said no combat troops with these exceptions and he put in the kind of exceptions i think you would agree with special forces operations, search and rescue, protecting personnel. and we would urge you, please, to go back and take a look at it. i just feel very strong. and i want to ask you questions that have nothing to do with that because i think you and i would probably disagree on that subject. there's no point in going over it again. but i am very concerned about u.s. military support for the kurds.

and you answered the question in a very sure way, which is wonderful. you said, oh, no problem. however the kurds aren't saying that. so i want to call to your attention a recent interview with bloomberg view just three weeks ago. the head expressed concern about our commitment to the kurds. these are our boots on the ground. these are our boots on the ground. he said quote we're starting to have doubts that there might be a political decision on what kind of equipment will be given the kurds. we're fieging with the rest of the world against this terrorist organization. we're putting our lives on the line. all we ask for is the sufficient equipment to protect these lives. so i need you to respond to that. is that off base? what do you think about that? do you take that comment seriously? does it concern you? >> i listen very carefully to

what the kurds have to say. and they have in so many ways demonstrated battlefield excellence and courage that should elicit all, all of our respect. but we have worked very carefully and very closely with the kurds. and your question presupposes and is correct that american support to the kurds have given them the capacity and more broadly and more recently coalition support to the kurds has given them the ability to do much of what they have been able to accomplish, recovery of mosul dam, the seizure of kisook junction. the many things they've done is because the coalition has been in close support with them. at the same time, in several different rounds, we've worked very hard with coalition member to respond to kurdish requests for equipment and that equipment has been flowing in. also in the context of the $1.6 billion that was appropriated

for the train and equip program for the 12 iraqi army brigades three of which are peshmerga they're getting exactly the same sophisticated equipment that the kurds -- >> my question was not about how good they are. we agree. they are saying they do not feel they have enough equipment. and i'm just saying, you're saying everything is rosy. they're complaining about it. as one senator, i can't speak for anyone else. they are our boots on the ground. we need to get them what they need. i know there's pressure from certain factions but if they're going to be our boots on the ground, we've got to give them what they need. thank you. >> thank you. senator rubio. >> thank you for your service to our country and your willingness to come back in and help with this new endeavor of great difficulty. i know we're not debating the authorization for use of force but i want to ask you, it's my

understanding from our review of the process that only two times in our history has congress authorized the use of force with limitations and both were u.n. peacekeeping missions. and so the question that i would have now is if our objective here is the defeat of isis would it not be prudent to authorize the commander in chief to move forward in that regard and allow him as commander in chief and any future commander in chief, whoever they may be, to decide what the appropriate strategy is moving forward. what would be wrong with simply authorizing the president to defeat them? >> well the strategy that the president has approved in fact does envision the defeat of dash. >> i understand the strategy does. for purposes of an authorization from congress -- i know you've endorsed today what the president wants to do.

and i understand that that's what the president thinks he can get passed. but from a military point of view, wouldn't it be appropriate to authorize the president to do whatever it takes to defeat them? >> the president needs the options that he -- that should be available to him ultimately to defeat dash. >> is it possible to defeat isis without them being ultimately defeated by someone on the ground. someone is going to have to confront them on the ground an defeat them there. >> yes. >> can you update us on efforts -- i've seen some conversation amongst the regional countries about the potential for a coalition of armed forces brought together, the egyptians, the turks, the saudis, perhaps some of the kingdoms, jordan, et cetera, who could provide a coalition of local forces who could play that role with significant u.s. assistance from the air. has there been any progress made in that? is that being activity discussed

with the nations? >> i would really prefer to have this sort of a conversation in a closed session. >> let me move to a separate topic. the nature of the conflict, isis has already proven they're going to move in -- for a group of this to take hold and be able to grow, they need ungoverned vacuum spaces. that's what's attracted them to libya, the ability to operate uncontested in terms of another government, et cetera. it is important to understand that as this conflict continues, the possibility continues to grow that isis, in addition to being based in syria and iraq will look to other places where they can set up nodes of operation, libya season a example but potentially training camps in afghanistan, any place

where a vacuum opens up is attractive and appealing for them. as we put forth our strategy and the congress deliberates the authority it gives the president, that reality needs to be taken into account, correct? >> i agree, yes, sir. >> the last question is about the nature of the conflict. it's been talked pabt in the past that isis is some sort of a group of monsters that take on these acts of extreme violence. but these are not just random acts of extreme violence. this is a group -- their barbarism has a purpose at the end of the day, to purify that region to their form of islam at the exclusion of non-sunni islam but especially of nonislamic populations. and in that realm it is clear that christians and yazidis, but recently christians in particular are in increased dark in this area. they target the christians as a way to shock the world and as an

effort to carry out the ultimate goal of purefing the region for islam. is there not a deep religious component to isis's strategy here. they're trying to again using a term they would use, not one that i necessarily enjoy using but cleanse the region of infidels and nonbelieves and in that realm they've specifically targeted christians for these sorts of atrocities they're committing on an ongoing basis that we saw yesterday again. >> i would say yes to that. the interpretation that they apply to all of those segments of the population that live within the area that they control has permitted them to do the things that they have done to certain elements of the population. so i absolutely agree with you. their interpretation of their responsibility ushd the so-call caliphate is to take action against certain elements of the population and treat them one way and certain elements of the population and treat them another way. it's based on their historic

interpretation. >> thank you, senator cain. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you general allen for the service. i want to thank you. you did very significant and important work with respect to trying to provide a security road map for the west bank in the event of a peace deal between israeli and palestinian leaders. whether the leaders will do what their citizens want them to do and find such a deal is up to them. but it shouldn't go unnoticed that you have worked hard on that and your work then and in this context in the best traditions of american diplomacy. i want to thank you for that js thank you, sir. >> i want to ask you a question and then ask two questions about means. senator johnson was quizzing you about what is defeat of isil. they're not a state. they say they're a state they're not. they're not islaming. they say they are. they're not. they're a mutation of islam. you talk about defeating the

idea of isil. they're an i'd logical driven death cult. we have to grapple with the question of what does defeat look like. i'm very practical about this. i want to protect americans from isil. that's what i want to do. i want to protect americans from isil and i want to protect the allies who ask for our help. the defeat of the ideology, we could be chasing a phantom but i want to protect the americans and defend the allies who ask for that. on the means side, a question about the ground troops issues. in the last three weeks we've had meetings with king abdullah and the mayor of cutter. king abdullah said this is our fight, not yours and basically suggested that u.s. ground troops would not be a good idea.

the emir of qatar was actually even more straightforward about that today. he said, i don't want american ground troops in. he actually -- he didn't suggest this to him. he brought up that it may be a recruiting bonanza for isil. it's against the west, now we can really recruit people. >> i think that's accurate. >> the ground troop thing is a wordsmithing issue, but that's subsidiary to the bigger issue. do we become an occupier, a recruiting tool for isil. king abdullah's notion, this terrorism is board and bred in the region. the region has got to stand up against it. if the region is not willing to stand up against it there's nothing that the u.s. can do that will ultimately lead to a success. we can't police a region that won't police itself. when the leaders from the region say american ground troops are a bad idea, that's a powerful

thought to those of us who are going to be voting on authorizations. how would you respond to that notion that the presence in any significant way of american ground troops changes the character of this making it the west against isil rather than a region needing to police its own extremism? >> i do agree with the emir and the king. the presence, infusion of a large -- i think this is where they would be a little more precise if even the opportunity. the presence of a large conventional maneuver force would change the nature of the conversation. it's really important to understand that during iraq and during afghanistan and in the way we have responded to other similar challenges around the world, the united states brings to bear a variety of really important capabilities. the first is the capacity of our

strategic leadership. just our leadership alone has brought to bear 62 nations against this challenge. our leadership brought to bear the first night of our strike operations five, five arab air forces flying along on the wing of the united states air force in strikes against isil targets in syria. that's not anything that any of us could have imagined a year ago. so our strategic leadership counts as an enabler to the process. other ways and means -- your question is really important. other ways and means that we can bring success to the arab solution to this is providing technical support, intelligence support, focused special operations strike capabilities the training and equipping that we're doing today, some of which can be done incountry, some of which can be done offshore in partner nations.

those activities undertaken with partners in the region ultimately to achieve the ends that we seek. the united states and our coalition partners have many means at our disposal from leadership all the way through to potential for special operations strike to give our arab partners exactly what they want, which is the capacity for them to be the defeat mechanism in the end. >> senator gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you general allen for your service and your time and testimony today. and again, we have to recognize that isis is a real threat to this country and it requires a comprehensive strategy and the commitment to their total destruction, i think, is the only thing that we can, we can accept. i'm glad the president has made the effort to forward the amuf to congress.

obviously i look forward to working with the president on the amuf and this committee. in the letter that the president transmitted along with his language for the amuf, he stated, and i'll quote, i have directed a comprehensive and sustained strategy to degrade and defeat isil. as part of this, we are conducting system mat particular air strikes against isis in iraq and syria. the u.s. has conducted about 250 air strikes. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> since the operation began. is the pace of the operation sufficient to eradicate isil at this point? >> well, eradication is not the end state that we are seeking at this particular moment.

our hope -- hope is not the term that i want to use. what our expectation is, given the strategy of the u.s. co- coalition air power and ultimately syrian forces will over time give us the strategic outcome that we desire. the combination of all those things together is what we anticipate. >> so besides the air strikes, then does the president's comprehensive and sustained strategy envision? >> several things. the first is to provide the stability of the iraqi government which is essential. we're working with the government in respect to reforms in partnership with the body of government which is inclined to see it that way. we're working closely with the iraqi security forces to prepare

them for a long-term counter offensive which will remove them from the country. we're working as an international coalition on behalf of iraq to pressure and generate funds and resources necessary for its long-term survival. we're working as an international coalition to staunch the flow of foreign fighters to dash has difficulty replacing its combat forces. we're going to share intelligence so we're working with the iraqis to give them a clear picture of what we understand dash to be and also so that we can defend ourselves and homeland for the potential of dash activities within the united states. and then, of course, we're

working very closely with our partners to provide humanitarian assistance to those elements of the population that will need to be recovered and relieved as we liberate them from the presence of dash in their population centers and then finally to work together with iraq and our partners and beyond the defeat of dash, which is the defeat of its ideas over the long term. >> and the operations that we just discussed, does that change at all. >> commanders take stock of the operational environment and ultimately and takes advantage of the opportunities available to them in the operational environment. we could well find that, based on our current estimates, that the activities that we'll

undertake in the counter offensive will follow along the pace and timeline that we anticipate. but we could easily find, that as a counter offensive unfolds that dash is unwilling to defeat at the hands of the iraq security forces which with what we want to see. so we may see that the operational environment could change and it's the responsibility of our very capable commanders in this case to constantly be monitoring the success of the unfolding operation to ensure we're getting the most out of the resources that we have and if we need more resources, that we ask for them. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator murphy? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. general allen, thank you for your service. thank you for your answers to the questions. they are very helpful. he want to build on some questions from senator menendez and boxer on the language that we have before us.

a lot of attention has been on enduring between what our offensive forces and what are defensive forces. just so i understand this, you've talked about the potential limitations under the enduring limitation but so long as the presence of troops is considered defensive, there is no limitation in this authorization of military force as to the number of troops or the duration of their time in the conflict area, so long as they are considered defensive forces. >> again, i'm not sponsoring the legislation. but the -- i think your point is correct in that regard. >> i thought your answer to senator mccain's question was definitive. you worry, as the president does, that a large-scale of

deployment of troops could become recruiting fodder. do you think that that changes if the forces are offensive or defensive if we have 100,000 defensive troops? i don't think this president is going to authorize this but this is a three-year authorization so the next president will get the chance to decide differently. will it matter in terms of the ability for extremists to recruit as to whether our troops there were categorized as defensive versus offensive? >> i -- again, these are all individual measures. it depends on how the crisis has unfolded. it depends on the region in which those forces may be involved.

it would depend on the activities that would have occurred prior to the introduction of forces that we might call defensive. it's just not possible to give a specific answer to that question. you know, i would have a difficult time understanding how we have 100,000 forces in a defensive environment if we hadn't had substantial offensive operations to begin with and that would, of course, change the regional view and the perspective on our forces and the outcome. so i think there may be occasions where we have facilities or concentrations of friends and allies need to be defended. the rationale that we would use for the insertion of our allied troops to defend those locations or those populations would be very, very important. so i think each of those circumstances will have to be judged independently. >> and do you have a sense -- i know you're not the sponsor of this legislation but you were

there -- as to what the limits of that word defensive are. if our forces were there taking fire from an isil position and you do advance on that position to eliminate it in order to defend our troops, i assume that that action in that time and space would be considered defensive in the sense that it was necessary in order to defend our troops or coalition troops. >> well, yes. in that particular answer, yes. again, we would probably, prior to the deployment of those forces, have come forward with as clear an explanation as we could as to what defensive would look like in the context of accomplishing that mission and accomplishing those tasks associated with defense. >> you're going to get stuck with a lot of hypothetical questions on these two phrases enduring and offensive and

defensive because we're stuck with trying to figure them out. part of the success of the awakening was not just persuasion but also the transfer of substantial resources to tribes. we effectively paid tribes in various ways in order to compensate them from moving away from insurge insurgency and coalition forces. how do we educate as we move forward once again a strategy of trying to win over these forces? >> that's a really important question. i was deep in that process and we did, in fact, provide direct support and we gave that direct support to the tribes in so many ways because the central government was incapable of doing it. and when we provided that

support, as you well recall, fundamentally the operational environment changed very quickly in '07 and '08. i think what we learned from that was not the fundamental change in the battle space that favored us, it was the long-term outcome of the sons of iraq, which was the hand-over of the responsibility to resource the sons of iraq to the central government in iraq. and that didn't work out frankly. because it was never clear to us whether maliki intended to support them or not. in this case, we seek in every possible way, both to encourage and support the central government, to bridge those elements now by supporting them, being present in the training process and ultimately ensuring that the linkage between the shaiks and the sunni leaders is

effective with the government not in a handoff later. one of the most important messages or lessons that have come from this. >> and does that include financial resources from the iraqi government to these tribes. >> yes, in the context, for example, of the 2015 budget by the iraqis and there is a way for the recruitment of tribal elements and into the national guard organizations. those organizations will belong to the governor and support and be nationalized in the event of a national emergency. that entity will belong to the ministry of defense and paid by national funds.

so the mechanism is under way right now where we are training tribal elements in anbar right now, they are being trained by the iraqi government. we're providing the training. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator flake. thank you for your testimony. we've got a vote so we need to go quickly. just a couple of questions quickly. how important do you think -- and i apologize if you answered this before i came. >> i think it's very important. the united states has exerted great leadership in bringing together these countries ultimately to support the restoration of the situation in iraq, its sovereignty and ultimately to deal the defeat daesh. isil is a threat that is unique

in our time and certainly unique in the time that i have been in the service and while the elements of the aumf will be treated by this administration and many of the members have brought up important points for clarity or for continued discussion, i think that's extraordinarily important, the message that it sends, that the administration is in a constant conversation and dialogue. but most importantly, in support of the u.s. leadership globally on this issue, a strong bipartisan vote to support the aumf compliments the leadership that the united states has exerted in this crisis. >> thank you. both our adversaries and our allies need to speak with one voice here. >> exactly. >> is there one that is more important in that regard or equally important for both of them to hear these messages? >> our friends who are in the coalition in the 21 capitals

i've traveled to have been extraordinarily grateful for the american leadership on this issue. but what i want is for our adversaries not to be able to sleep at night because we have the unqualified support of the congress in our actions necessary to defeat this enemy. >> at what point is the impact of this aumf diminished if we have language -- if we try to include every point of view and every nuance as opposed to something straightforward that we're in this to win? at what point does it become less important? >> it would be difficult for me to answer, senator, but i would just hope that the consultation between the administration and this committee puts the language in there that the president needs to defend the american people, to defend our country but also to deal the defeat that daesh that it desperately needs. >> well, other examples of aumf, there hasn't been much change. we have basically done what the administration has asked for. there's been some amendments in recent aumfs but, by in large,

it's been rather straightforward language, rather short. i frankly think the language that the administration put forward is a good start and it may be amended some but i would caution the committee and the congress in general, the senate and the house from going too far to make it all things to everyone. and probably diminish the importance of it. thank you for your service and thank you for your testimony here. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator. senator king, i know, had a follow-up. >> i wanted to ask about one of the lines of effort that we're working on in a fairly significant way and that's the humanitarian relief line. the u.s. is the most generous nation in the world in terms of humanitarian relief in relation to refugees to syria but the problem is getting worse in some ways because of closing of borders with lebanon, too many refugees there, turkey with

border issues is probably less willing to see waves and waves of syrians coming over. and so what are we doing in tandem with the other nations to try to deal with the humanitarian crisis to deal with all of these displaced folks in syria whether they are displaced because of assad, cholera, poverty, i wonder if the humanitarian efforts are in tandem with other nations. >> i'll give you a partial answer and take the question and give you the ability of the department to come back. we obviously take that very seriously. we have the relief efforts that, as you point out, have been generously supported by the united states and others directly to the populations of syria and iraq. we have the u.n. appeals which need a lot more assistance to bring those appeals up to 100%.

we're in the depth of a winter which has made this more urgent and timely and we have the front-line states struggling with the influx of syrian refugees. turkey, lebanon and jordan. we need to give them the support necessary to ensure these demographic changes that they are experiencing are, in the end, not destabilizing to their stability and their security. and then very importantly is the humanitarian assistance that will follow in trace of the counteroffensive when that ultimately kicks off. it could be argued that the clearing operation will be important to remove daesh out of the population center. but we're going to find that these people have lived under indescribable conditions. and so our ability to quickly

apply the humanitarian assistance necessary to the female populations, to the more broadly the liberated populations, to the internally displaced persons that will come home as we begin to clear these population centers of daesh, supporting their return to their homes, the necessary humanitarian assistance to the restoration of the central services, electricity, water and then ultimately reconstruction. as your question presupposes this is a huge bill and a huge undertaking to -- should be to everyone's satisfaction or at least optimism. many of the members of the coalition have been very clear in their willingness to support the broader u.n. effort for the region and the

front-line states and a number other of the coalition members have put their hands in the air to be leaders of and supporters to that very important humanitarian effort that will follow right on closely on the heels of the clearing operation that will move daesh out of iraq. so it's a multifaceted multi-layered, complex issue but in the end i think the humanitarian issue is one of the death blows that daesh will experience. >> you talked about the complexity of the no-fly zones and i would commend this along the border of jordan or turkey or both that would be justified by u.n. security council resolutions in place, promoting

cross-border or delivery of humanitarian aid. that would be humanitarian zones for people whether they are following bashar al assad, the winter, hunger, whatever, once the borders have been closed and can't transit across the borders, i hope we would contemplate some form of safe haven for these citizens who are suffering so badly and what i think is the worst refugee crisis since world war ii. >> that is correct, sir. >> that would be in the form of some type of a no fly zone. >> because no fly has the military, you know, label right up front, i call it a humanitarian safe haven zone but i would want such a zone to be protected from whoever may be seeking safety. yes. >> very good. >> well, general, i know you have a hard stop in 20 minutes and i think we've -- you've certainly helped us in the ways that we wanted you to help us. we appreciate your testimony. i would have one question and that is is you talked about the

need for congress to be behind the need for dealing with isil. there's been discussions about the length of time from an aumf standpoint. is there anything about the time frame? i know the president has asked whether it's longer or shorter. is there anything about that that you think matters at all relative to what you're talking about appealing to? >> well, our intent with respect to daesh is to end its abilities, to deal that defeat to them as quickly as we can. if it takes longer than three years, my suspicion would be that we would come back to this committee and request an extension. >> and if it was shorter than that, it wouldn't trouble you either? >> it wouldn't trouble me at all if daesh was defeated in less than three years.

>> no. they would not trouble us either. does the length of time really particularly matter to you from the standpoint of the allies and those that that we're defeating or is it just more congress getting behind the effort in a bipartisan way? >> i think it's the latter. >> well, listen, i called over the weekend while you were on your way to kuwait. we all view you as someone who is an outstanding public servant. we appreciate the way you've gone about your work. i know it's difficult. i know decisions don't always get made in the manner or time frame that someone like you wants to seek this, get this done in the appropriate way but i think your demeanor, the way you talk with all of us is certainly very, very well received. we wish you well in what you're doing. >> honor to be with you. thank you, sir. good day, sir.

>> and with that, the record will be open until friday for any questions. we would ask that you and your staff respond to those in a fairly timely fashion. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> senate majority leader mcconnell has agreed to introduce a bill. we will get congressional reaction. at 7:45 eastern the oklahoma senator will join us to talk about the topic. half an hour later, a democratic perspective. with happier be sarah -- xavier becerra. >> here are some of the featured programs for this weekend. on book tv, saturday night at

10:00 p.m. on afterword, ellen risk it -- allan ryskind talks about communist party. her books include the tyranny of the majority. and on american history tv, said today at six eastern, a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina. followed by the surrender of the city to general sherman. and in interview with a former consultant to the next white house. a classified study he get to the new york times in 1971. find the complete coverage on c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching.

e-mail us. send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> the house of representatives considered two education bills on the floor today. one measure was -- would continue and change the elementary and secondary education act through 2021. it would also eliminate the no child left behind law. here's the floor debate on that bill. it runs just over one hour. >> we have an opportunity to advance bold reforms that will strengthen katie-12 education. 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. 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 schoo 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 fai