tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN October 26, 2015 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
6:00 pm
long time and i told the story when i took over the chicago public schools in 2001, we were taking the illinois state test and iowa state test. and made less sense. we cut out the iowa test and tried to get to a place that made sense. what our team thinks about all the time is the gell of high standards. low standards that many states adopted in reaction to no child left behind have had negative impacts on children who were told they were on track to be successful and they weren't even close. we believe in high quality assessments, mike spoke a lot about that in his comments. we believe in meaningful accountability. we have to look at students in communities that aren't being served well and whether it's the
6:01 pm
child or school or district level, we have to know who is making progress and who is not. what we don't believe in are unnecessary or low-quality or redundant assessments. that doesn't help anyone. his leadership, along with chris minnich and other school officers, these are organizations that fight for kids every single day, helping lead the nation where we need to go and their leadership and partnership has been hugely important. i think we all have to look in the mirror and say what have we done to contribute to the issue and the challenge. and what we do individually and more importantly, collectively, to get us to a better spot. a lot of folks have been comments on the amount of testing. that's an important conversation to have and to think about. we're making recommendations in terms of the amount of time and chris has said, we have to
6:02 pm
talk about a local level. we thought it's important to put a recommendation out there, that recommendation came from what john king did when eafsheafs state officer in new york. but it's so important for all of us to think about, how do we get to more coherent, assessments that drive instruction. strong assessments are not in conflict with good instruction, they help promote it. parents actually want to know where their children are. when you poll the mick, they want to know where they are. they want their chern to get better. if it's confusing, that's not helping. so if we think about time, and time is one part of this conversation. the other part of the conversation is a coherent strategy where good assessments are leading to better instruction. i always say the goal of every great teacher and principal is not to teach but to have children learn. how we assess their learn, how
6:03 pm
we assess their strengths and weakness, how we empower students themselves along with parents and teachers to know what that child's strength and weaknesses are, and what they can do better during the school day and after school, to help that child improve, that's what we need to get to as a nation. we want to be a better partner at the federal level, we want to lay out a road map at the federal level for things we hope will be helpful. we want to listen to mike and his team, chris and his team, and figure out how to get toyota a more rational place. i think together it's a very, very important conversation to have. we're not going to solve it all today. but to open this up, not to give mike another assignment, once -- more than once every couple of decades, but we need to look at this. if you're reducing the amount of test time but it's still not
6:04 pm
coherent, that's a good sound bite but doesn't get you where you need to go. if you reduce the amount of time and that's leading to better teaching and learning, that's powerful. that's, i think, the next iteration of this conversation. this is the start of something that i think is important. not the end of something. i want to thank mike and his team for their work, chris and his team as well. i look forward to getting the nation to a much better place going forward. >> to begin our panel discussion this morning, i want to bro euce our moderator, caroline hendrie. . hendrie: it's been a whirlwind of news on this topic. my members have been busy. for those of you who don't know, ewa is the national professional organization for those who cover education. all these folks have been keeping us busy.
6:05 pm
we have a great panel, in addition to mike casserly and secretary duncan, we have chris minnich, from the executive council of state school officers and we have deputy secretary king who will be taking over for secretary duncan at the end of the year, and we have dr. june atkinson of north carolina a leader among state chiefs. in fact, i think you were just named president of the council. nd we have dr. carvalho from miami-dade, also superintendent of the year and very active on the issue of assessment. we have folk whors very knowledgeable about this topic. i'm delighted to jump in. so my first question is for you, deputy secretary king. over the weekend, as we've all heard, the administration acknowledged that it bore some responsibility for overtesting of students.
6:06 pm
it also announced that the president has directed the education department to review the administration's role in this and how to address how it may have contributed to the problem and to respond accordingly. the department came out with a 10-page testing action plan and -- in which not only you kind of accepted some responsibility but you also kind of laid out steps that you plan to take to help states and districts cut back on testing. so some of my members have written about this, that some of the -- some of it is new but some of it is not so new. i'm hoping you can walk us through a little bit, what's new in this plan and what do you think is most significant? mr. king: thank you, and thank you to arne and chris for his
6:07 pm
leadership on this issue. i comment on this having been a teacher and principal, the ke key -- the key is how do you establish the right balance? there's no question that assessment that's high quality and well designed can meaningfully inform, can give information to parents about how their kids are doing and how to support them, to teachers about how to improve their instruction, and to students about how they're progressing toward the goal of college and career readiness. it's also clear that low level, poor quality assessments candice tract from good instruction. that redundant assess. s that aren't providing useful information can get in the way. the good news which we call out in the plan over the weekend is that we have states all across the country that are moving toward higher quality assessment. dozen os states have adopted better assessments that better reflect the standards of college and career read i -- readiness, more on writing and problem
6:08 pm
solving and critical thinking. it is clear from conversations with parents and educators and from this report that there are places where there is tch testing and too much testing that's low quality and not helping transform instruction. we lay out some principles we think should drive policy at the federal, state and local level, that assessment should be worth taking and high quality, that they should provide meaningful indicators of student achievement and growth. the progress that students are making over time. that no test should be given just for the purpose of educator evaluation. we lay out the principal that assessments should be time limited. we make remeck rend -- recommendation that states shoup cap the amount of time in testing at 2%. many states are taking action in this way. new york is doing it, june will talk about what's happening in
6:09 pm
north carolina. we lay out the principle that tests should be one of multiple measures used when evaluating the progress that students are making that schools are making, and the work of educators. and we lay out the principle that assessments should be -- that assessment results should be transparent and actionable and timely. it's important for educators of parents of good information from assessments on which to act. and we commit to a set of actions, getting to the heart of your question, actions to help support districts and states around the country. one is financial help. we have made available funds for states to do audits of the assessments that they give and to invest in improving the quality of assessments this epresident has made a significant, over $400 million budget proposal for 2016 focused on state assessment work, including a set-aside for states to put those resources toward
6:10 pm
audits of the assessments they give so they can call the assessment -- cull the assessments that are unnecessary or due public ty. we actually in new york use race to the top funds for a teaching at the core effort to bring together teachers and administrators to discuss the assessments given. support, ars two is we'll support teachers and hools as they evaluate these removes they replace and assessments. third, we'll continue to work with states on flexibility through the elementary and secondary education act waiver process and other areas of flexibility in federal regulations to help states identify opportunities to reduce
6:11 pm
unnecessary testing. one good example is that many states have received waivers from giving the eighth grade test to students who also take high school assessments. so students are taking high school algebra shouldn't also to sr. to take the eighth grade math test. a number of states have taken advantage of that flexibility. fourth, we'll continue to identify policy areas where we can continue to reduce the appropriate level the role of assessments. we're looking at our teacher prep regulations, a place where we want to make sure. teacher prep programs are focused on how well their candidates are assisting students and improving their learning but we don't want them to look at that only through the lens of assessment. assessment should be one lens among many. we're working with states on flexibility around teacher evaluation and places where rather than using a low level bubble test they can use more performance based assessments as a part of how to look at state of the union learning for
6:12 pm
teacher evaluation. ultimately what we hope to do is continue to accelerate the progress of work that mike's numbers and chris' numbers have begun in this area. ms. hendrie: one thing i don't think you got into too much is, excuse me. the point that made the most news was the idea of a 2% cap. i remember secretary duncan, when you were at our conference, the e.w.a. conference in chicago new york your hometown, last spring, you said very clearly that you've been public about the fact that there's too much testing and you had said at that time that you'd urge states to cap the amount of state and district testing. so in the past six months, what has changed in your view if anything to put forward this
6:13 pm
recommendation that congress should ensure that states cap the amount of state assessments? is this, now you think there's a federal role for this beyond sort of you urging states to do it? and congress actually coming in shalt, cap -- thou shalt cap testing. mr. duncan: it gets to the heart of the issue, what's the appropriate state and local role. i think what's happened, the fact is, the lack of clarity has led to redundancy and duplicative exams and things that are of low quality. for me the biggest issue is not just the time, it's the lack of coherence, the lack of strategy and the lack of driving instruction in realtime. i keep coming back to that. so we can have lots of debates
6:14 pm
about the appropriate federal or state or local role. it's an appropriate conversation to have. i think collectively, we all have a mutual responsibility to help get this to a better place. and you know, we're all trying to be, i think, pretty self-reflective here. as john talked about what we tried to do is provide lots of flexibility with esba and some folks did some amazing things. i'll point out an example in tennessee of a fantastic arts teacher who didn't like what the state was doing in terms of their assessment of art teachers and key ated his own. drew davidson, did amazing work that was first adopted local and i think has been adopted statewide. that's an example of flexibility that never -- of no child left behind being used in a productive way. in other places, flexibility hasn't been used in such a thoughtful way. i think what we're trying to do now is provide more clarity in terms of guidance and a road map of what we think meabs more sense. we can have an academic debate
6:15 pm
and we should about state versus local versus federal. at the end of the day is it working for children and teachers and parents? by any measure, we would say today is suboptimal and we need to find a way to get to a better place. ms. hendrie: you urge in the action plan that states impose a cap are you saying 2% of classroom time? and where did that come from? maybe deputy secretary king you might want to mention that. in new york you have some kind of version of that maybe say where that came from. mr. king: it came from -- mr. duncan: it came from john. i'll let him answer. mr. king: we cap the amount of time that was spent on statewide standardized tests and district standardized tests and cap the amount of time spent on test
6:16 pm
prep that involved test prep simulation. the challenge, it is difficult i think at the federal level, to figure out what is the right answer across 50 states, so what we suggested is that states should take on this responsibility of setting a cap and communicating transparently with families about what assessments are given and how the time is used. again, the goal here is balance. because we don't -- what we don't want is for states to move away from quality and say, we're going to do less write, less problem solving. ms. hendrie: there's concern about people responding to caps an lopping off tests willy nily. mike, i have a question for you. i was impressed with how the report didn't mince words about local school systems' role in this. you said that they share responsibility for what the -- for what today's testing
6:17 pm
portfolio looks like which is too often inco-hereabout, misaligned, redundant, and/or inappropriate. i think those are tough words for your own member districts. so how hard will it be to fix the situation at the district level. - level? mr. casserly: first of all, after this is all over if anybody knows any job openings, let me know. our board of directors asked for the report. they reviewed the report after it was done. they saw the language that we used to describe what they were doing. and they said, amen. you're exactly right. that's what we are doing. i think because they have embraced what the niche of the issue is, that we are going to have a much easier conversation with our own members about stratsquis -- strategies they can use to reduce the amount of
6:18 pm
testing, so i'm not actually terribly worried about tell because they really own the issue in lots of ways. let me also ask chris to join me in this on the 2% thing. i understand and appreciate what the administration is proposing and i think generally, what the administration is proposing in its 10-point action plan is an important step in the right direction. at the same time, it's not clear to me that implementing a one size fits all across the board 2% cap on the amount of testing time is what the solution is to this problem. it will reduce the amount of time that one spends, but issues of quality and use and redundancy and all of that get
6:19 pm
unaddressed and there is a very strong possibility that people will cap the test and eliminate tests that actually could be helpful in informing instruction. so -- you could easily have a situation where under 2% which is really -- which you'd really be left with, is only the federally required tests. locally administered assessments that are given to inform instruction could be squeezed out of this. so i'd be -- i'd be concerned about being too hard and fast about what the -- what a percentage actually ought to be. i think the sentiment in term of reducing time is the right sentiment. but drawing a line and not being clear what's over that line and what's under that line, i think,
6:20 pm
could create negative unintended consequences that we almost can't foresee at this point. ms. hendrie: chris, i know you want to jump in on the idea of capping. as you speak, i'd love you to address one hofe findings in the report about the lack of alignment on many -- of many of the tests being given in the urban districts to college and career ready standards as the leader of aning or nee -- organization that's bhn at the forefront of promoting the higher standards and the aligned assessments, i would think that that would be a finding that would be somewhat concerning to you. mr. minnich: yeah, thank you mike, and thank you deputy secretary. i think mike said it well, i don't think i need to add too much to that on the cap, it's clear it could have unintended
6:21 pm
consequences. so we're in a place where i'd rather talk about quality and the idea that we're giving a bunch of tests that aren't aligned to the standards being taught in these districts is rally the headline for me -- really the headline for me here. that these tests are just being given because they were in the past. no one would have bought these tests if they had read their standards at that point. these tests were still being given because they had been given over the last 10, 12, 15 years, i think. i think that is a really, really important point for states. i appreciate what the secretary state about all of us owning some of this. states have to own this. the federal government needs to own some of this i'm hoping that today will be a start of a conversation with our states and our districts. i think the second thing is, mike and i work together to release a report last year where we laid out some actions that states and districts were going to take to reduce testing.
6:22 pm
obviously, given the survey had just been completed with mike's district, we don't have any data to show our impact yet. but we do have 39 states working on reducing testing. we're tracking that. they're having conversations at the local level. as mike said, you know, our members care about this. they go to schools. i was just in a school last week where the parents were telling me how important it was that they were getting assessments regularly. and so for all of the hubbub about how much assessment there is, i know there's paraphernalias out there who want to know how their kids are doing. ms. hendrie: chris, i do want to get the conversation started you mentioned with the districts and so i would love dr. atkinson and dr. carvalho to respond to the idea of a cap and also talk a little bit about what you all are doing on the testing front to reduce testing and also to
6:23 pm
experiment with new approaches to how you're giving your tests. dr. atkinson. ms. atkinson: thank you very much. i appreciate the opportunity to be part of this panel. when i was a student at mondale elementary school, i had to take lots of tests. to me the big idea is, what is the purpose of the test? and that's where we have started in north carolina. about two years ago, we did an extensive survey of our schools to find out about testing. what we found is that when you just include state and federal tests, that takes about 1.6% of the students' time. then when you add in local tests, then that bumps it up to about 2.3%. and so we started having focus groups with teachers an students and parents about the whole issue of testing. and that brought us to the point
6:24 pm
of our students, our teachers, and our parents saying that what should be the purpose of the test is to help students and to help teachers know what to do next in the classroom to improve student growth and student achievement. so this year, for the first time, we are doing what we are calling a proof of concept. where we take the stan tards for fifth grade english rang wadge arts and the standards for sixth grade math and we are chunking the stan tards and then we are administering shorter assessments to students, three or four during the year, so that we can give immediate feedback to the teachers and to the students about what to do next. and this became a very important -- this became very important to me after having a focus group with sixth graders, seventh graders, and eighth graders.
6:25 pm
one eighth grade student, excuse me, one eighth grade student said it would be so help ffl you would chunk the standards an give me a shorter test so i would know what to do to improve if i am not learning certain stuff. and so that's what we're trying to do. we are taking the lead of an eighth fwrader who said, let's have smaller tests, spread over time, and that we would use that feedback immediately to help students improve. and our big goal is that we want to get to the place, and we believe we can, where assessment is integrated so much into instruction that students and parents and teachers cannot tell the difference dean what is instruction and what is the difference between what is instruction and what is assessment. we believe we're on the bridge
6:26 pm
of going from a 20th century artifact of testing to a 21st century artifact of testing. consequently, it will take a lot of work. we don't know how long that bridge is, whether it's a short or long bridge, but we believe with technology we can get to that place. our proof of concept will have greater assurance we'll have alignment, that we will have coherence, and that we will have purpose. ms. hendrie: you didn't mention the cap cap idea, what do you think about that? quickly respond before we have dr. carvalho. ms. atkinson: i believe the cap is a way to have a conversation and bring attention to an issue. but in the end, i believe the pup of the test and its coherence and alignment should drive when we test and how long we test. dr. carvalho, i
6:27 pm
know you've been active on testing, even to the point of going to the state legislature. do you want to tell people about that? mr. carvalho: sure. thank you, mike, for your work on this issue. number one, the benefit of being last to speak is that all the smart things have been said. so i'll just bring to you the perspective, not only of the superintendent of the fourth largest school system in america but also a practicing principal still today. iics appearance this situation as i hear from teachers and from my colleagues and also as superintendent. let me first allude to the fact that i think one of the most important conclusions in the report is not clearly stated in the report, which is that as a nation, we will not, we will not assess our way to academic excellence. that's clear. secondly, we need to focus, shift away from quantitative, strictly quantitative analysis of how much time and how many
6:28 pm
exams we put before kids over to a qualitative conversation about the efficacy toward teaching and learning that these assessments, these tests, provide us. can they actually improve and inform teaching and learning in a classroom? are they useful to teachers? and do they transparently inform communities and parents about performance? the third point is this, we need to recognize, and it's been stated, perhaps overstated, but it is true, that the problem we're facing today is a result of a cumulative impact of federal, to state requirements and then local districts engaging in the development of district generated benchmark assessments to be predict i to not be surprise about the scores that will come out. you put all those together and yes, you do have a complex issue. let's not forget also that in many cases, assessments in the state of florida and across the country, you know, reflect the proverbial tail wagging the dog.
6:29 pm
they were not generated for the purpose of informing teaching and learning. they were in fact generated as a matter of statutory requirement to drive teachers' evaluations. so a few years ago, in the state of florida, statutes were passed that in essence required that a student achievement data level would be used in the evaluation of every teacher. the state solution mandates statutorily mandate an end of course assessment for every single course taught in the state. that's literally hundreds, if not thousands of end of course assessments. so what is the solution? number one, i embrace the fact that rather than ask permission, you ought to embark and beg forgiveness if caught. so last spring, we began the year by decommissioning 24 assessments, generated at the district level so totally under our control, for the pup of
6:30 pm
generating a benchmark of data. simply eliminating those restored up to 260 minutes of teaching time. secondly we lobbied tallahassee, testified in tallahassee, and the governor ultimately issued an executive order, mid school year, that eliminated the need for the vast majority of end of course assessments. we immediately decommissioned close to 300 end of course assessments. virtually at the elementary level we went from 23 mandated assessments to zero. at the middle school level from 77 to four. and at the senior high school level, where you have the real breadth of course work, from 186 to just six. so we are supportive of this report. i think the next phase of the conversation cannot just be a cap as a form of percentage of time consumed by testing. it's really both a quantitative analysis of how many exams but
6:31 pm
also a robust and honest conversation about the relevance, the duplication of efforts, and the real intent and purpose behind these assessments. that is very much a qualitative conversation about what assessments in america today should in fact measure and should inform. ms. hendrie: secretary duncan, one thing we didn't mention is the president went on facebook on saturday an put out a statement and -- about overtesting, and it's -- it's tempting to see this as sort of the end of an era, kind of the end of the nclb era. do you think that's accurate? or do you think this is a misreading of that? mr. duncan: i think it's important not to misread the point -- it's important to just look at the fact. and the facts are pretty clear. the president echoed what everyone here has said trks that
6:32 pm
he thinks in some places there's too much testing. and he's believed that for a while. i believed that for a while. these guys believed it for a wismewheff a database, we have facts now, rather than anecdotes. the president also believes it's important to hold ourselves accountable for student learning. it's important to have a good assessment. i think just understanding the facts and not putting a spin on it is very important. another point i want to make, the media won't focus on it, but i want to make sure i say it, we can talk about the 2%. that's important. >> we'll take you back live to the house, later they'll debate re-authorization of the export-import bank. consideration of house resolution 450 the speaker pro tempore: did the gentleman sign the motion? mr. fincher: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the gentleman from tennessee calls up a motion to discharge the committee on rules from further consideration of house resolution 450, which the clerk will report by title.
6:33 pm
the gentleman will state his point of order. >> section 2-d i-1. this motion is not timely brought. the rule says on the second and fourth monday of the month, immediately after the pledge of allegiance to the flag a motion to discharge has been brought on the calendar shall be privileged if called up by a member whose signature appears thereon. we had the pledge and intervening activity in the house and this motion is no longer tilely -- timely. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? >> we took up one-minute speeches and received a message from the senate and you yourself approved the journal. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from tennessee.
6:34 pm
mr. fincher: the gentleman is out of order. this is regular order and moving on as proceeding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. fincher: the rule is very explicit. mr. mulvaney: the rule says we must proceed immediately. i recognize the fact that on occasion one-minute speeches are not business from the house, receiving mess angs from the senate are not business and on
6:35 pm
occasion, approving a journal is not a business. the rule says we cannot do other business. the rule says says we must proceed immediately after the pledge of allegiance and if it is brought at any other time, it is untimely. the speaker pro tempore: any other member wish to be heard on this point of order? the rule does not say that it must be. it just says that it can be rought up immediately. the chair has entertained one-minute speeches. only those speeches preceded by unanimous consent on those grounds. the point of order is overruled.
6:36 pm
mr. mulvaney: mr. speaker, parliamentary inquiry. does the language of section 2- d-1 say shall be privileged if called up. not may, shall, if. the speaker pro tempore: it would be order if it was to be brought up then. mr. mulvaney: parliamentary inquiry. if 2-did can d-1 say it shall be in oshed. but the chair is ruling that it may be in order at other times, what ruling is the chair relying on for that determination? the speaker pro tempore: it can be brought up immediately. mr. mulvaney: further point, mr. speaker, the only way that it's
6:37 pm
privileged is that if it's brought up immediately after the pledge. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is following prior precedent of the house. mr. mulvaney: when you were giving your decision before, i was reading the rule. would you restate the basis for your decision. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has entertained one-minute speeches on previous discharged days. those preceded by unanimous consent. on those grounds, the point of order is overruled. mr. mulvaney: you did not address my issue on receiving a message from the senate or approving the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has entertained numerous parliamentary inquiries on which the chair has already ruled. mr. mulvaney: for purposes of precedent -- parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his
6:38 pm
parliamentary inquiry. mr. mulvaney: would the decision have been different if we had ot made one-minute speeches? the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot respond to a hypothetical question. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 450, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 597 to re-authorize the export-import bank of the united states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: under the rule, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, will be recognized for 10 minutes and the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling will be recognized for 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher. mr. fincher: discharged petitions have rarely been invoked but they embody democracy and fundamental principle of majority rules, principle that the gentleman has talked about earlier. this discharge process offers
6:39 pm
the only means by which a majority of house members can secure a vote on a measure that is opposed by the chairman of the committee jurisdiction and house leadership. what makes the gentleman's remarks particularly ironic is the fact that the discharge rule evolved from a precursor rule adopted in 1910. the cannon revolt was a revolt against speaker joseph cannon and was remarkable and is relevant today. speaker cannon was at the time the longest serving republican speaker in the history of the house serving as speaker from 1903-1911. referred to as uncle joe. e ruled with an iron fist. no historian has painted him -- he blocked legislation including child labor law and the women to vote. what was his reason for blocking
6:40 pm
this progressive legislation? quote, i'm tired of listening to all this baseball for reform. several times -- the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman may proceed. mr. fincher: republicans have tried to curb his broad powers which included his chair manship in the rules committee and dole out assignments. that changed in march of 1910 when 42 republicans joined with the democrats that would sfrip speaker cannon of his many powers. he tried to filibuster, speaking from the chair for 26 straight hours while allies tried to round up additional allies on st. patrick's day.
6:41 pm
he ruled the resolution out of order and they adopted far-reaching reforms including today's discharge rule. i ask my colleagues to join me in returning power to rank and file members by voting on the motion to discharge and supporting american jobs and with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i want to recognize the gentleman from tennessee and the passion that he brings to this debate. he has long been a champion of the export-import bank. we have had a respectful disagreement over the substance of the issue. but at this moment, i don't care to spend much time on the substance of the issue, because we are debating a discharge petition. and it was an interesting history lesson that my colleague
6:42 pm
and friend introduced the house to and i have no reason to doubt that it is and accurate history lesson. i will note that somehow mr. cannon managed to get a building named after him. the point i would make is this, whether the gentleman from tennessee and others have disagreed with process at the financial services committee, i know that they do, but the question before us, mr. speaker, is why punish the entirety of the house? those who are bringing forth this discharge petition had the opportunity to allow members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments, people who were not on the financial services committee could have had the opportunity to offer amendments, but not under this particular discharge petition. and so, mr. speaker, the real complaint i have here is,
6:43 pm
regardless of what complaints or beef they may have against me personally or the process against the financial services committee, why punish the entirety of the house? we hear so much about regular order, about empowering rank and file members, then why aren't rank and file members empowered to offer amendments. we were told this was to discharge a single piece of legislation so why not let the house work its will. that doesn't appear to happen. i perfectly understand that one man's economic development is another man's corporate welfare. and i think that debate will happen tomorrow, but here, right now, simply because there is a rule to have a discharge petition that would disqualify any member from offering an amendment doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't avail ourselves of it. the constitution allows us to create debt. it doesn't mean it's a good
6:44 pm
thing for us to do that as we face another debt ceiling vote in front of us. and so i would simply hope that members would vote down this discharges petition and if they believe strongly in it, and if they bring it back, allow members on the floor to offer amendments. people from all committees should be able to offer amendments if that was the purpose of the discharge petition. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. fincher: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i would say to my friend from texas, it was three years to do exactly that and wasn't done. i thank the gentleman from tennessee for tennessee and i thank the courage working within
6:45 pm
the rules to bring this matter to the floor. it's an important matter. since july, businesses and workers have been asking congress to reopen the export-import bank so they could compete on a level playing field. this is about jobs. reopening the export and import bank is about creating and keeping jobs here in america. the motion will demonstrate that a majority of this house supports taking action to pass a multi year extension of the bank's charter authority. will have a chance to show the american people that congress can work together, democrats and republicans to get something done that helps businesses and workers compete and create jobs. and now i yield 30 seconds to my friend from washington state who has been so critical on this ssue.
6:46 pm
mr. heck: this is regular order. this is the only regular order we'll be given a chance to take up this job-creating legislation. i know this for a fact. it's not speculation. on february 12rk they offered an amendment to the views and estimates on the budget that said in part, the committee will work to consider the re-authorize of the -- re-authorization of the bank through regular order on the leadership of the committee said vote no. there was never an intention to subject to this regular order. now is our chance to do that. support the gentleman from tennessee and oklahoma and vote yes on this. mr. hoyer: i thank mr. fincher, i thank mr. lucas, i thank ms. waters and i thank denny heck. vote for this motion to put a bill on the floor that the majority support. that is democracy and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized.
6:47 pm
mr. hensarling: it is now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, chairman of the monetary policy and trade subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. huizenga: it seems to me we have two issues we're dealing with today. the first is the issue of the export-import bank and the issue itself, and the entitlement mentality that's grown up here in the united states. it's sad to me that some believe that this is the only, or the best way for the u.s. to compete on the world stage when in fact we know it is not. we are at a competitive disadvantage not because we may or may not have an export-import bank but because of our regulatory environment, our tax environment, and because of all the other barriers thrown up by this congress, including health care and a number of other things that made our companies less competitive. the other issue is that the way that we are dealing with this issue as it's coming to the floor and how it has reached the house floor today.
6:48 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. . high venga: thank you -- mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to know which other committee would like their process to be short circuit the ways and means committee? i've not been happy as a maul business owner or things like that. or the ag committee. how about any other committee we are all dealing with? the fact is, my subcommittee, monetary policy and trade, where this has jurisdiction, had three joint hear wgs the oversight committee on this particular issue. there was a sunset put in, it was intentionally put in, so that there would be a review. the review happen and the determination of my subcommittee and this committee was that it did not warrant further action system of again, as we are looking that the tool that's
6:49 pm
been infrequently used, it doesn't restore regular order, as has been claimed. in, in fact it up ends the balance of power in the house. it skirts the committee process and gives the minority control over the house floor. a discharge petition was brought to the house floor under the guise of job creation. in reality it serves to revise and retrench a dependency mentality. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. he gentleman from tennessee. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois who has done great work on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the speaker and thank the gentleman from tennessee for your hard work too. i remind the previous speaker, this is a republican-led discharge petition for ex-im bank. we could have avoided this. none of us celebrate being here right now as republicans. but the time to deal with the issue of ex-im bank was on the committee. unfortunately, this never got --
6:50 pm
the speaker pro tempore: members will please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman may proceed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. unfortunately, this could have gone through the committee this could have been voted on in committee, it could have come to the floor in what people could consider a more regular order way than this. however, that didn't have the opportunity. mr. speaker, my district is the 16th district in illinois. mr. kinzinger: they're not worried -- worried about discharge petitions, when people talk about regular order and internal politics what they care about is that it is a heavy manufacturing district and they want to be able to go to work tomorrow. they're worried because people live with the threat of pink slips and many people get pink slips. unfortunately, in july, the charter for ex-im bank which put a lot of manufacturing suppliers in the aerospace industry at a
6:51 pm
disadvantage in my district compared with those that supply to airbus and other companies around the world, pride in our exports and pride in our manufacturing is something that we should have pride in and we should fight beyond what it mean farce party label or beyond what it mean for floor politics. mr. speaker, the opponents of re-authorization live in a world where the poll teches of purity trump the realism of today and of the commecks. here's the reality. in my district, thousands of jobs, millions of dollars of ports, and many, many people rely on this to be re-authorized. mr. speaker, i know this is not easy as republicans to do this. but it is the right thing to do. so i stand and i ask my colleagues on the republican and the democrat side of the aisle to put partisanship aside, do the right thing and to discharge this resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from tennessee reserve this egentleman from texas is recognized.
6:52 pm
mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, a valued member of the financial services committee, mr. schweikert, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. schweikert: i hope you're all listening to some of the use of language. i appreciate the history lesson. but has it been lost on you the irony in part of this discussion that hey, we're going to do a discharge petition which is part of the rules, because we don't feel we're having a voice. oh, by the way, we're going to draft a rule, draft a rule that you can't offer amendments that you can't have a discussion, that you can't, for those of us who have worked on this issue for years, who have sat through dozens of hearings in multiple years, who actually have things we believe make it better, the brilliance here is, lock it down. that this -- so you're going to complain you're not being treated fairly and then the answer to not being treated fairly is, let's write a rule that no one gets a voice.
6:53 pm
that it's prurely -- purery up or down. is that lost on anyone here? the reality of it is the vast majority of the trade from this country has access to surety bonds trade credit. it's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that actually needs, asks for a taxpayer subsidy. a taxpayer guarantee. you could actually if you wanted to solve this problem tomorrow, you could recharter, you could recharter the ex-im bank, that it continues to exist but get taxpayers off the hook and let them do just as fannie and freddie are trying to do, where they buy their reinsurance in the market. there are solutions here. if i was allowed to offer an amendment. but you've all chosen to write a rule that keeps those of us who worked on this issue for years from being able to have that discussion. is that irony lost on anyone here? you know there's a better way to
6:54 pm
do this. than extending this type of crony capitalism and leaving our taxpayers on the hook for hours and hours of hearings we've had where you've heard the bad acts going on in this agency, the fraud, the misaccounting. why are we going to let that move forward? if you read the reforms in here, you'd understand, they already should be doing these. it's an outrage they're not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker, members, i'd like to thank the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, for yielding and for his leadership in initiating this very
6:55 pm
successful discharge petition in order to make possible the opportunity to vote to renew the charter of the export-import bank. for almost two years now, as ranking member of to the financial services committee, i've within working -- working very hard with leader pelosi, hip hoyer and my colleague denny moore and -- glen moore and denny heck. and today after obstruction by a vocal minority of this body which led to a shutdown of the ex-im bank this house will finally get the opportunity to vote to do just that. let me be clear, mr. speaker. this discharge petition is not a rejection of regular order. although rarely used, the discharge petition exists under house rules for the very purpose of ensuring that the will of the determined majority may ultimately prevail over an obstructionist minority and that is exactly what's happening today.
6:56 pm
republicans and democrats, republicans and democrats have come together to support the re-authorization of a proven job creator. we've come together to end the unilateral disarmament that's harmed our exporters. their domestic suppliers, and the many american workers across this country whose jobs are supported by the bank. we have come together to show that compromise is possible if you're willing to work it. so again, i thank the gentleman from tennessee for his work. i urge the members to vote in favor of this motion. we have come together as members of congress to do the work of the people. let's get on with the business of doing it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. 4 the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from texas. >> i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney
6:57 pm
another valuable member of the house financial services committee. sproil the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mulvaney: i'm going to pick up with the comments about regular order. this is not regular order. in regular order we have amendments. i have an amendment that would protect small businesses. i don't get a chance to do that we would under regular order. but let's not forget that there's not just one committee that's getting rolled here. rules committee is getting roll. if this was to follow regular order and go to rules, every single one of you would be able to offer amendments in that committee. they'd probably get shot down as mine have since i've been here but at least you could offer them. furthermore if it went to rules committee, you could have debate. you could participate in debate on the issues. what's getting ready to happen here in a few minutes, mr. fincher will control one hour of debate, speak for five and yield back. denying every single one of you in this chamber the opportunity to speak for at least half an
6:58 pm
hour each side on this particular issue. this is not regular order, mr. chairman. this is shoving something down the american peoples' throats. let's have regulararder. let's have some amendments. i've got some you might enjoy. let's have debate. but let's not kid ourselves into thinking this is regular order because it's not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. fincher: i have one remaining speaker. how much time do i have left? and i reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: both sides have two minutes remaining sprosm up the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. he gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. lot of discussion. passionate discussion about jobs tonight. and i would point out to my
6:59 pm
democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle, where was this passion when obamacare was passed? congressional budget office says it's going to cost this economy $2.5 million -- going to cost this economy 2.5 million fewer jobs. where was this passion when h.r. 30 came to the floor that would repeal this 30-hour definition of full-time employee. according to one study, 2.6 million americans making under $30,000 are at risk of having their hours cut due to the obamacare 3046 hour rule. where was the passion on the other side of the aisle when h.r. 351, the l.n.g. permitting certainty and transparency act came? that is estimated to put up to 45,000 unemployed americans back to work in liquid natural gas export projects. where's the passion when s-1 came ale, the keystone x.l. pipeline? the state department's environmental impact statement said in construction, support of
7:00 pm
approximately 42,100 jobs. we didn't hear much from our friends on the other side of the aisle when this was going on. but again i think too often my friends on the other side of the aisle are always happy to subsidize what they can regulate and control. i would say to my friends on my side of the aisle, i respect your opinion, i hope you respect mine. but i think there's a better way to promote exports. i think there's a better way to promote jobs. and has everything to do with regulatory reform. it has to do with the reins act, it has everything to do with fundamental tax reform, which according to the national association of manufacturers is half of our competitive disadvantage. it has everything to do with litigation reform. our green energy european competitors have greater -- we have greater remedial costs than they have. there is a better way and there is a more fair way to come to
7:01 pm
this floor, whatever you think of the process of the financial services committee, if this is going to come to the floor, every member ought to be allowed to have an amendment and we should reject, reject this discharge petition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i want to yield the remaining two minutes of our time to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker. colleagues, why are we here tonight? why are we compelled to engage in this process? circumstances perhaps might be a little bit like 1910. remember 1910? a dictatorial speaker, who was so totally in control, who was so totally refuse -- who so totally refused to accept input from the membership that he made himself chairman of the rules committee too. and he stymied the legislative process. he brought it to a stop.
7:02 pm
what did our predecessors do 100-plus years ago? they finally rose up together and threw him out. and created a process by which no dictatorial chairman, no dictatorial speaker would ever be able to fully thwart the will of this body. that's amazing. that's what we're here for. continuing one century later the responsible actions that they put into place. now, some of my friends have said, why don't we have thousands of amendments? well, think about 1910. dictatorial speaker, dictatorial committee chairman. under no circumstances was uncle joe going to allow any input. so when they created this process, they had to make sure that the bill could come to the floor for consideration. in a way that would not allow it to be manipulated by that same dictatorial attitude. now, we're operating under the present version of that rule. if we wanted unlimited
7:03 pm
amendments, we should have spent an unlimited amount of time in the committee of jurisdiction working on those amendments. but that opportunity never availed itself. had that opportunity availed itself, we wouldn't be here. we wouldn't be here. but we are here. and we have a bill that reflects, i believe, a ma jofert us in this house -- a majority of us in this house believes is in the interest of american workers and american business people, in a competitive spirit. i simply say to you, to talk about the things we should be doing tonight, that should have been done a month ago or a year ago, seems most inappropriate, so my friends, in a moment, let's honor the people who were on this floor in 110 -- in 1910, let's say, you can't have your way then and now, let's pass the discharge, let's pass the rule and let's get on with the bill debate. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
7:04 pm
all time is expired. the question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, to discharge the committee on rules from further consideration of house resolution 450. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
7:25 pm
7:26 pm
the clerk: house resolution 450, resolved that immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the house shall proceed to the consideration in the house of the bill h.r. 597, to re-authorize the export-import bank of the united states and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of h.r. 3611 as introduced shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amened and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services or their respective designees and two, one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. section 2, clause 1-c of rule 14
7:27 pm
shall not apply to consideration of h.r. 597. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members please clear the well. take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher is recognized for one hour. mr. fincher: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman recognized. mr. physical injurier: the house is not -- mr. fincher: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. members are reminded to take their conversations off the
7:28 pm
floor. the gentleman may proceed. mr. fincher: thank you, mr. speaker. there's been a lot of conversation here tonight about what we're doing and how this happened and what we're going to do next. mr. speaker, the reason why we are here tonight, i didn't sign up to come to washington from frog jump, the place i live, to do discharge petitions. but the reason i did come to washington was to work for my district and try to make sure that hardworking men and women all over this country and my district have jobs. mr. speaker, that's what the export-import bank does. it helps create thousands of obs, specifically 200,000 jobs
7:29 pm
each year. let me be clear, because there's been a lot of misconception or misperception, whatever you want to say about what this cost the taxpayer. mr. speaker, at no cost, no cost to the u.s. taxpayer. $675 , the bank returns million to the u.s. treasury in 2013, ear 2014, and in more than $1 billion, mr. speaker. but this is not a minority, this is not a democrat procedure that's happening tonight. this is is a republican-led position. this is a republican reform bill that we're doing. more reforms that have been done in probably 50 years. i haven't looked specifically but i think president reagan, he did a lot and other presidents
7:30 pm
have done them. but this is about jobs, mr. speaker. think about this. we go home to our districts every weekend. we talk to constituents every weekend and think about constituents that come up to us and say, you know, congressman, have you balanced the budget? and we say, no, we're working on it. but we haven't done it yet. well, congressman, and i don't want to offend any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i probably will but don't mean it. they say, congressman have you repeal odd ba macare? i say, not yet, but we're working on it. then they look at me and say, tell me, congressman, you have done away with the only thing we know of that help crease ate thousands of jobs all over this country and possibly would help create the job that they had
7:31 pm
because of some ideology or some conservative group that is scoring a member of congress and now i don't have a job and i'm on unemployment. now, mr. speaker, our constituents and hardworking americans deserve better. they deserve better than members of congress playing political games because of scorecards. i serve under one of the most principled chairman, probably the most principled chairman in congress. and i agree with him on 99.9% of everything that we do in our committee. we just happen to disagree on this one issue. but my chairman is passionate and principled and i never would doubt -- >> the house is not in order.
7:32 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the entleman will suspend. he house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. fincher: mr. speaker, i won't take much more time. if america is going to get out of the hole we're in as a country, then congress must start working together. and, mr. speaker, we should applaud, we should be happy on the day, and don't want to offend the gentlelady from california who spoke earlier, but we should be happy on the day when democrats want to join republicans on legislation that elps move the country forward. we are trying -- they're clapping. that's awesome. we are trying to do what we think is best and the
7:33 pm
export-import bank doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime, helps create thousands of jobs all over this country, makes sure we don't lose thousands of jobs to 60 other countries that have these credit agencies. and, mr. speaker, i don't know whales to say -- what else to say. this is regular order. this closed rule i'm going to close in 10 seconds, but this is all about regular order. and you know what? we could have had amendments. we could have had 1,000 amendments in our committee. but we chose to go this -- we didn't choose it, some of us chose to go this route and this issue g with today. our constituents deserve better and we have to do better. and with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. and move the previous question on the resolution. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker,
7:34 pm
parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, the resolution before the house is h.res. 450, which, as i understand it, would establish the rule for debate on this ex-im re-authorization bill. that it does not make in order any amendments. so, the closed rule means that in addition to not having any debate on the rule, since all time has now been yielded back, with no other member having a chance to speak, members have been denied their chance to participate in that part of the process. so my parliamentary inquiry is whether there is any way at this juncture for members to amend the resolution, h.res. 450, to give members an opportunity to offer amendments to the underlying ex-im re-authorization bill?
7:35 pm
the speaker pro tempore: if the motion for the previous question was rejected, there would be a potential for further debate on or amendment to house resolution 450. mr. hensarling: further parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. so if the previous question is defeated, then a member who is opposed to the previous question would be afforded the opportunity to offer an amendment to h.res. 450, that would strike the text of the closed, no-amendments rule, and replace it with the text of a rule that provided for consideration of the underlying ex-im re-authorization bill through an open process, with time for debate, where any member, either republican or democrat, could offer germane amendments to the bill, is that correct, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot respond to specifics but if the motion for the previous question was rejected, there would be potential for further debate on or amendment to house
7:36 pm
resolution 450. mr. hensarling: so further parliamentary inquiry. if the previous question is defeated, may i claim time or any member who votes against the previous question claim time to offer such an amendment to create an open rules process for consideration of the underlying ex-im re-authorization bill, where members on both sides of the aisle can offer amendments to the bill? the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot judge that at this time. mr. hensarling: i think the -- i thank the speaker. >> parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. >> a few minutes ago, in reference to a question raised by the gentleman from texas, you indicated that the amendments would be in order if the motion for the previous question failed. my question is, are motions to amend in order before the motion to -- for the previous question comes to the floor? the speaker pro tempore: the are previous questions has preferential -- the previous question has preferential standing.
7:37 pm
mr. mulvaney: i have an amendment at the desk, i'd like to have it heard now. the speaker pro tempore: the previous question has already been moved. mr. mulvaney: no it hasn't. the speaker pro tempore: the question son ordering the previous question on the -- mr. mulvaney: who moved the -- who moved the previous question? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. mulvaney: was that econded? the speaker pro tempore: the previous question -- the house will be in order. the previous question does not require a second. mr. mulvaney: i have an amendment at the desk. i would simply like to ask what rule you're relying on in denying me the ability to bring that now. the speaker pro tempore: clause 4 of rule 16. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the
7:38 pm
gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause of rule 20, further -- 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.
7:39 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany
7:40 pm
house resolution 491, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1090, to amend the securities exchange active 1934, to provide protections for retail customers, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair about postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays is ordered or on which the vote incurs bjection.
7:44 pm
7:45 pm
and advancements for dyslexia act as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerkry ports the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3033, a bill to require the president's annual budget request to congress each year to require a line item for the research disabilities and education of the national science education and to require the national science foundation to conduct research on dyslexia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from virginia, each will control 20 minutes. mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that all legislative days will revise and extend and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: h.r. 3033, the research excellence in advancements for dyslexia act, or read act, will help millions of americans who struggle with dyslexia. it is fitting that the house considers this bill today, as
7:46 pm
october is dyslexia awareness month. dyslexia affects an estimated 8.5 million schoolchildren and one in six americans in some form. it causes these individuals to have difficulties with reading though they often have normal or above average intelligence. despite the prevalence of dyslexia, many americans remain undiagnosed, untreated, and silently struggle at school or work. too many children undiagnosed with dyslexia have difficulties in the classroom an sometimes drop out of school and face uncertain futures. the read act requires the national science foundation budget to include a specific line item for the research in disables education program. the bill requires the n.s.f. to invest at least $5 million annually for merit reviewed, competitively awarded dyslexia reserge projects. the bill uses funds already
7:47 pm
appropriated for the n.s.f. and does not authorize any adegreesal spending for these priority projects. n.s.f. research supported by the read act is focused on practical applications which include the following. early identification of children and students with dyslexia, professional development for teachers and administrators of students with dyslexia, curricula an educational tools needed for children with dyslexia and implementation and scaling of successful models of dyslexia intervention. the house science, space and technology committee held a hearing last year on the science of dislex yasm experts testified how research in the area of neuroscience has led to practical ways to better diagnose and deal with dyslexia. at a second committee hearing held a few weeks ago, we heard from experts who worked directly with dyslexic students and their
7:48 pm
teachers. they know firsthand about the obstacles these children, parents and educators face and they stress the importance of research in developing practical tools. if you can't read, it is hard to achieve. if we change the way we approach dyslexia, we can turn this disability into an opportunity for a brighter and more productive future for millions of americans. i am a co-chair of the bipartisan dyslexia caucus along with congresswoman julia brownlee which is comprised of more than 100 members of congress. i have met hundreds of children and their parents in my congressional district in texas and others across the u.s. who are affected by dyslexia and they share their personal stories with me. one child i met recently was eddie a middle school student from baltimore. he, along with his family, has been on a long journey to receive a proper diagnosis and find a supportive learning
7:49 pm
environment. after our meet, his mother wrote me a letter explain, quote, in only one year, eddie has gone from repeatedly missing recess because he would not, quote, try harder a boy who would stare at his homework in defeat before trying an assignment, to a boy now daring to dream of a career in the sciences, end quote. eddie is fortunate to have a mother who advocated for his proper education. he is now not only able to learn but also to excel. his mother commevents, quote, he is a voracious reader and wants to join a jet propulsion lab or work with nasa, end quote. i also have had the pleasure of meeting an austin, texas, resident, robbie cooper and her son, ben. they shared many stories with me about the shard hipps -- hardships they have faced in their attempts to ensure ben receives the best education possible. ben has taken his abilities one step further by becoming an advocate and traveled to d.c. new mexico rause times to --
7:50 pm
numerous times to lobby congress so others can learn from his experience. the bipartisan read act which unanimously passed the science committee two weeks ago will help ensure that all children like eddie and ben have the means to succeed. nothing could be more important to them. i also want to acknowledge two young friends who are on the floor with me today, lleyton and gibson, who have an interest in this bill too. the read act is a significant step in the right direction to help those with dyslexia. thanks go to my dyslexia caucus co-chair, representative julia brownlee and the other co-sponsors of the read act such as congressman don bier who is handling the other side of this debate tonight, for their interest ant support. i urge my other colleagues to better the lives of millions of children and adults with
7:51 pm
dyslexia. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: passing this bill is the perfect way to honor october, national dyslexia awareness month. as my friend said, dyslexia is a learning disorder characterized by difficulty reading due to problems identifying speech sounds, learning how they relate to letters and words. unfortunately, many children are not diagnosed or are diagnosed laettner life, leaving them with little access to helpful interventions and technologies. too often, educators do not have the proper training to identify students with learning disabilities, including dyslexia. this bill would fund research on the early identification of individuals with dyslexia and professional development for teachers and school ad mrtors. there's a lack of researched on
7:52 pm
curricula development for students with dyslexia and i'm happy to report this bill would fund research into that as well. finally as we heard from our export witness in the committee hearings on this topic, there's a significant gap in getting the research from the laboratories into the hands of teachers and administrators. to address this gap, we need more research and understanding which experimental innovations will be successful in classrooms and research on how best to scale those successful interventions. having an intervention work in the laboratory is not enough. the intervention needs to work in a classroom setting which are retrojes now environments. i have a first cousin raised just across the river in fairfax county. he was the most clever child because he managed to make toyota eighth fwrade before they realize head didn't know how to read. he had a good career but i wonder what kind of professor or supreme court justice or rocket scientist he would have made with early intervention. mr. speaker, my oldest child had
7:53 pm
a passel of learning disabilities but also had and has a very high i.q. at the school he attended, to address the disability the walls were adorned with photos of albert einstein, winston churchill and thomas edison. these remarkable men remind us of the promise of every child. that a learning disability like dyslexia need not hold a child back from an extraordinary life and extraordinary education. this is why we need the read bill, to help realize the ploms of every child with dyslexia. on this remarkable bipartisan night, i want to thank my texas friends, chairman smith, ranking member johnson, for working across the aisle together to make improvements to this bill in the committee process. i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i'd like to thank mr. beyer for his generous comments, it's been nice to work with him
7:54 pm
on this particular bill. i would like to yield two gentleman from virginia -- the gentlewoman from irginia. ms. comstock: coming from a lynn of educators and being a library -- librarian, i understand how this affects children. reading opens up a wild world for children and all of us and no one should be cut off from that beautiful world that reading opens up to us. when dyslexia goes undiagnosed, it can result in struggles in the classroom and continue through into their careers as adults. despite knowledge of the condition since the 19th centurymark americans remain undiagnosed and untreated. given what we know today and we know the advancements we can make with research and
7:55 pm
technology, we need to make sure we are not letting that stand. in july, i joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues to co-sponsor the read act. the bill rears the president's annual budget request to congress to include a line item for the research and disabilities education program of the national science foundation. it also requires the nabble science foundation to devote at least five million annually to dyslexia research which would focus on best practices for early identification of children and students with dyslexia, professional development about dyslexia for teachers and administrators. and then programs and development in evidence-based educational tools for children and all of those who are dealing with this. i would like to thank chairman smith, the committee staff and ranking members and everyone who spothed this important bipartisan legislation. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia.
7:56 pm
mr. beyer: i yield four minutes to the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. brown lee: thank you, mr. chairman. as co--- ms. brownley: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of this bipartisan bill, the read act which will ensure finally that science drives informed public policy. i want to thank chairman smith for his passionate leadership on this issue and today is a day i think that we can all celebrate and i want to thank you very, very much for all of your efforts. the read act will increase national science foundation research on dyslexia, including best practices on early identification and professional development for teachers and school administrators. it will also support research on the most effective teaching practices and curriculum models for students with dyslexia. the research this bill supports
7:57 pm
can make a difference a big, big difference in the lives of millions of american children. learning disabilities like dyslexia and attention related disorders affect as many as one in five children in our country. 's as my daughter hanna struggle with dyslexia that led me, quite frankly, to public service. out of real frustration, i ran for my local school board because as a parent, it was clear to me that our schools were unprepared to meet my daughter's needs and to meet the needs of students with dyslexia and teachers had never been properly trained to identify this learning disability. and after 12 years on the school
7:58 pm
board, i was elected to my state legislateture. as chair of the california assembly on education, i worked to improve education for students with learning disabilities. and now as a member of congress, i want to do my part at the federal level. across the country, many states are stepping up to this challenge. they passed new laws to update their education codes, get assistance technology into more classrooms and to boost teacher training. advancements in cognitive science can teach us much more about how the brain develops and therefore how children learn. in closing, i want to share with everyone that my daughter is now 30 years old, she speaks three languages and she's saving the world one life at a time in africa. so she finally got the services
7:59 pm
she needs and is being very successful in life and following her own dreams. and i also want to thank again the gentleman from texas who is my co-chair on the dyslexia caucus as well as all the members of the science committee for their bipartisan support for the read act. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this very important piece of legislation and i will yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio a distinguished member of the science committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. all the work that's gone into this important piece of legislation. i rise in support of h.r. 3033, the read act. this important legislation would require that the president's
8:00 pm
annual budget to congress specifically fund the research in disabilities education program of the national science foundation. it would also require n.s.f. to devote at least $5 million annually to dyslexia research. you're probably going to hear multiple members come up tonight and talk about personal stories about how this hits so very close to home for some of us. i have a i have a 13-year-old granddaughter in texas. i have watched over the years as she and her mother and her dad have struggled to help try and identify the problems that she has with learning. teachers that were unprepared to diagnose
52 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on