Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to support State and local accountability for public education, protect State and local authority, inform parents of the performance of their children's schools, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the Letting Students Down Act.

H.R. 5 is supposed to be the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and a rewrite of No Child Left Behind. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was born out of Brown v. Board of Education. It is our Nation's education law, but it is fundamentally a civil rights law.

H.R. 5 runs our country in the opposite direction from those civil rights promises. This bill guts funding for public education. It abdicates the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure that every child has the right to an equal opportunity and a quality education. And it walks away from our duty to hold school systems accountable to students, parents and taxpayers.

For decades, providing all children with a quality education has been considered such a critical national priority that we have always found a way to come together in a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize and to update the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

We all recognize that a good education is a great equalizer, no matter where you come from, and it is necessary for a strong economy and a vibrant democracy. Each reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in its own way, has moved our national education system forward.

That's why now-Speaker John Boehner and I worked with then-Senator Ted Kennedy and President George W. Bush in crafting the No Child Left Behind Act more than a decade ago. We agreed that there was a soft bigotry of low expectations in our education system. We agreed that schools were hiding low achievement by some students by using the averages of performance in the schools, and it was wrong. Parents wanted to know how their child was doing, not how the average child in the school was doing.

No Child Left Behind turned the lights on inside our Nation's schools. For the first time, parents could see whether or not their schools were actually teaching all students. Were they serving their student?

And in the decade since the law has been in effect, the evidence is irrefutable that all kids can learn, given the opportunity to succeed, regardless of their background, just given a chance.

However, as someone who has listened to experts in communities across

the Nation and its pros and cons, I recognize that we now need to modernize the education law, No Child Left Behind, with fundamental changes. No Child Left Behind is very much the education reform of the past. It is inflexible, and encouraged some to lower their standards, to reduce their standards, to dumb down their standards, which this Nation cannot tolerate.

That's why it's time to rewrite this law, to embrace the principle that all students can learn if they're given an opportunity, and to encourage high standards that meet the needs of the 21st century global economy.

Unfortunately, H.R. 5 moves our education system in the wrong direction for students and schools already struggling under a broken system, and lets American kids down at a critical time.

H.R. 5 lets our students down by not guaranteeing all students have access to world-class, well-rounded educational opportunities needed to compete in a global economy.

It lets our students down by locking sequestration cuts into education funding. It allows funds to be moved away from schools with the most poverty, and removes the requirements of States and districts to adequately fund their schools.

It lets down students with disabilities by allowing schools to lower their standards for educating these children. And it lets our students down by not building on a broad consensus that we should continue to demand high standards of all students.

An extraordinary cross section of business, labor, civil rights, disabilities and education groups are opposing this bill because it lets our Nation's children down. It lets our economy down.

The National Center for Learning Disabilities says that this bill would dramatically alter the academic landscape for students with disabilities, jeopardizing their ability to graduate from high school or to go to college or to obtain employment.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights believes that the merit of an education bill is determined by its treatment of the most disadvantaged among us. Yet H.R. 5 permits Federal funds targeted for this vulnerable group of students, such as English language learners and Native American students, to be reallocated for other purposes.

The business community opposes this bill. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is disappointed that the bill ``does not demand targeted support and real improvement for students stuck in low-performing schools or for students whose schools are not teaching them the basics in reading and math.''

I agree with these concerns. This bill is a huge step outside the mainstream consensus and an even bigger step backward for our Nation's students. We should be embracing the drive towards high standards across this country and ensuring that all of our children in all States benefit from this improved education system.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will agree that a bipartisan Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorization is the right process we should move forward. This is about every child in our country getting the education they deserve, regardless of poverty, disability, or other challenges. To walk away from that commitment means letting our students down, letting the parents down, and letting down taxpayers who demand accountability. It means letting down teachers who deserve support. It means letting down businesses who are counting on our school system to produce college- and career-ready graduates. It means letting down our future.

We can do better than this. We can do it way better than this. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Many of my colleagues have expressed concern over the fact that H.R. 5 takes the level of funding to the sequestration level. I think we ought to understand what this means in terms of ongoing improvement in the education program and the educational opportunity for those young people who are poor minorities and who go to some of the poorest schools in some of the poorest districts in our country. This is going to really grind down their ability to be able to respond, those schools, those districts, those teachers, those administrators, to the needs of those young people.

What it means is they will not have access to the kinds of support services that are necessary so that they will truly have an opportunity, have a full educational opportunity. We know that in many instances, in many of these schools, these students and these teachers require additional resources, require additional support systems for these students.

We know that when they are given those support systems, when they are given those resources, these very same children are able to thrive. We see that demonstrated all across this country all of the time.

I represent some of the most difficult schools in the State of California in the most difficult areas in the State of California, where children navigate very dangerous streets to get to school and to come back, yet we see students who were given that opportunity to have a first-class education are now attending Brown University and the University of Nebraska and UCLA and other such institutions.

The fact is these children can learn. The question is whether we will supply them with the resources so they can have the opportunity to do so.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a fundamental debate that we will be having now as we enter the amendment process for this legislation. This is really a debate about whether we go backwards or forwards as a Nation. Every Member of this Congress--I believe I would be correct in saying--both in the House and the Senate--has told their constituents how important it is that we have a world-class education system and how we are falling behind other nations. Yet we see here the consideration of legislation by this Chamber that, in fact, moves us to the past.

It restricts the resources that are available. It reduces the accountability in the system. It fails to support teachers and principals--those people who almost every speaker today has said are the most important people in our education system. While it provides for teacher evaluation, which I support, it really only provides it for the purposes of hiring and firing a teacher, not to provide the kind of support and not to provide the kind of collaboration that teachers-- young teachers and new teachers to the system--bring with them in wanting to have that experience so they can improve their profession, the kinds of opportunities that teachers want, and the reason teachers are organizing independently among themselves, both on the Internet and in localities, so that they can share their skills and their talents to improve their abilities to deliver the education. That support is not here.

You can say, Well, it's block-granted, and they can do it if they want.

Not under sequestration.

They'll be lucky if they can provide survival for the students whom this legislation is directed at, which are the poorest children in this country--minority children, English learners, children on Indian reservations, children who need special attention to succeed. If they get it, they can succeed, but this legislation doesn't do that. This legislation doesn't address the priority that, again, every Member in this body has spoken about. As for the priority that needs to be put on STEM, you can do it if you want to do it.

I've listened for so many years--people say, within the Federal Government, it's only 5 percent of the money or it's only 6 percent of the money--and it's always so burdensome. Well then, don't take it. I know the manager's amendment says that, but that's the law today. You sign up for this. And if everything else is going so well, how does this 5 percent of the money have such bad results in the districts? Because the fact of the matter is, we know, for whatever reason, many, many school districts and many schools are failing the students that they're supposed to be teaching.

This is an effort to try to assist them. This is an effort to try to give them the flexibility so that they can make these decisions, but if you send it in the form of H.R. 5, they're not going to have the support to do it; they're not going to have the resources to do it; they're not going to have the trained teachers to do it; they're not going to have the trained principals to do it--and that's what we should not be doing. We should, in fact, be emboldening our schools with those resources, with those talents and with those skills. We should make sure that every teacher has the capability, has the subject matter competency.

In a poor school today, you're learning arithmetic in the fourth grade, you're learning mathematics in the eighth grade, you're learning algebra--your chances of having a teacher who understands those subjects and who has taken courses in those subjects is one in seven. Shouldn't it be, for those children, one in one? Shouldn't it be that every classroom has a teacher who has subject matter competency? But we all know in our districts that that's not what happens in many of these schools. We know that, in fact, an art teacher is asked to go into a mathematics class. We know that a part-time history teacher is asked, Can you help us out in the science class?

That's not how you maintain this country's being number one in the Nation. That's not the education system that will do it. We can poke along, and we can lament, and we can worry about China and India and about countries that are making a commitment to their education systems and to their research facilities, but unless we make that commitment, we won't be running that race in the next generation. We will have settled in to some other place than number one, and I don't think that's acceptable to the people of this country.

We have been told by all business leaders who come here--whether they come from Silicon Valley or they come from the manufacturing areas of the country in the Midwest--that they want a stronger K through 12 system. That's why the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable have serious problems and are in opposition to H.R. 5, because it doesn't meet their needs that they say that they need in terms of a future educated population in order to get those skilled workers, to get that talent base, to get that future innovation. That's their decision,

not my decision. That's also the decision of the civil rights groups. That's also the decision of the parents with children with disabilities and of the disabilities community. That's also the decision of the educators in these systems.

This legislation is not up to the standards of America. It doesn't meet America's future needs. It doesn't meet the standards of excellence, and it doesn't meet the commitment of resources that this Nation should be making on behalf of the schoolchildren in this Nation and of future generations.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

For the most part, this manager's amendment is technical changes to the underlying bill. For the same reasons that I oppose the underlying bill, I oppose the manager's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the House, I oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan because I think this amendment continues the ideological approach here that we have in taking away Federal dollars under H.R. 5 from the poorest schools in our systems, serving some of the poorest children in our country, at a time when this legislation locks in the post- sequestration funding for the schools now, as H.R. 5 does, and mandates that those scarce dollars go to the private sector. Now we're mandating that those schools now get involved with the private sector.

I don't know, maybe it's different in your States. But in my State, when local school districts put together their budgets, when local school districts consider engaging in developing new programs and new curriculums, they invite the community to come in and participate in those discussions across the board. Nobody has to mandate them to do that. They do that because those are community schools. Those are trying to serve the community.

Whether it's at the elementary level, or at the high school level or at the community college level, this is what they do in developing those curriculums and developing those assessments that are taking place. And so I don't understand.

In a bill that rails against Federal mandates, we're now on to our second mandate under this legislation. Why are we creating these mandates for these local districts that know better, that know how to do it best, according to all of the statements here?

Why are we then mandating from the Federal Government to do it this particular way?

In my community I would say they already do it this way, but I don't think they need to be mandated to do that. And for these reasons, I oppose this amendment because I think it continues the ideological bent that somehow, while mandates are bad for schools when they come from the Federal Government, apparently, when they come from the Congress they're good.

So we'll try to sort this out in the meantime. But in the meantime I'll oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I thank the gentlewoman for introducing this amendment. I strongly support this amendment for all of the reasons that she laid out in her remarks in support of her amendment.

I believe that, in its current form, H.R. 5 would undo decades of progress and relegate students with disabilities to a second-class education. That's why the disabilities community stands united in firm opposition to this bill. It astounds me that this body is considering enactment of such draconian policies. I thought that by 2013 bipartisan consensus on natural ability and potential of all children would be commonplace, but I was wrong.

One of the biggest victories we had under No Child Left Behind was the attention to students with disabilities, with the assumption that this population of students can and will achieve. Students with disabilities have thrived under these high expectations. H.R. 5 returns us to the era of soft bigotry and of low expectations with respect to students with disabilities, and that is unacceptable.

This Republican bill completely removes students with disabilities from the accountability system, greenlighting States and districts to assess any student with disabilities to a lower standard by allowing States to develop and assess students based upon a lower set of standards regardless of the severity of the disability. This would return us to a time when students with disabilities are hidden and not given access to quality education. That was the situation when I came to this Congress.

I'm no prouder of any act that I've ever authored than the Children With Handicaps Act, now known as IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We cannot undermine that legislation and the progress and achievements that those children and their families have made and to see their successes. And now to suggest they will not be in an accountability system so that we hold schools accountable for the achievement and the successes of those children is just unacceptable.

I strongly support the McMorris Rodgers amendment, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Chair, I yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), and thank her again for this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Reed amendment because it weakens accountability for ensuring that our Nation's students are achieving at high levels. This amendment seems like a good thing--allowing schools to measure in areas besides reading and math--but the amendment is so vague that it will allow almost any measure to be used, and that's not what we need in the system at this time.

Adding measures to this amendment does not fix any of the problems to help students. Too often, we've seen throughout the course of the last many years that adults try to make themselves look good by hiding and masking how well their students are doing academically by trying to seek other systems of measure that will make a school look better, even though the students inside that school are not performing at top level.

For those reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

I thank the gentleman.

I agree with the gentleman that the testing provisions included in No Child Left Behind as well as the implementation of these provisions is imperfect and outdated. Unfortunately, ESEA authorization is 5 years overdue and the majority appears to have no interest in working with us to develop a bill that can pass both the House and the Senate.

However, I'll gladly work with you to address the issue of testing in America's schools to ensure that while we continue to measure whether or not students are achieving at grade level, we will also ensure such assessments be done in a way to improve both teaching and learning.

I thank the gentleman from California, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although I will not be in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express appreciation for Mr. Benishek for this amendment. The gentleman from Michigan has an admirable goal, which is to improve career and technical education.

Members of the Congress are well aware of the needs in all of our local communities. As new systems of manufacturing are brought online and as new innovations take place, we want to know how well our students are doing and how well our schools are doing in helping to prepare those students for job opportunities that are presented in these many craft areas.

I would urge Members to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

I urge support of the Heck amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I rise in opposition to the Schock-Meehan amendment because it really is a political exercise that fails to fix the problems of H.R. 5, the Letting Students Down Act. The amendment is an ideological attempt to give school districts more control, but actually doesn't do that. It just creates more paperwork, more bureaucracy at the Federal level by consultations and chances to dispute regulations, many of which are already allowed in Federal law, but this would be a separate subset to require that.

I have been here a long time, and I can't think of any administration that gave both States and local school districts more options, more flexibility, more ability to design the systems under which they want to work than the Obama administration, which now there are 37 States who have undertaken Race to the Top, which gave them great flexibility, and there are 40 States that have undertaken waivers, which give them even more flexibility. When you talk to the superintendents and you talk to the Governors in those States, they are delighted to have that flexibility to design the systems that they want to be able to design and to improve the systems and to get better achievement by their students.

Now we are coming along with some continuation of some outdated, very conservative argument that all these problems are at the Federal Government. The fact of the matter is no administration has unleashed the skills and the talents and the desires of local school districts and States than this administration.

This is an ideological bent. It is an ideological fix. It is not going to end. What it doesn't do is it doesn't correct

any of the very real and very big problems that underlie this amendment in the underlying bill, because the underlying bill gets education funding and it locks in the sequestration levels that are going to grind down every school district that has poor students and poor schools in that district, and it lets States dramatically reduce the funding for those districts.

The priority of this Federal spending is to try to equalize the opportunity for those poor minority children, and it diverts funds for teachers away from poor schools and districts toward the wealthier ones. It eliminates the block grant funding for vital programs with no accountability--no accountability--how those funds will be spent. We just saw an amendment offered here earlier today because people recognize all that does is just diminish the resources that are available for those populations with special needs.

I oppose this amendment, as I do the underlying legislation, and I would ask my colleagues to vote against it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 5, the so-called Student Success Act. The

Student Success Act is an ideological attempt to reduce the crucial Federal role in K-12 education.

To be clear, there's no excuse for bad policy that interferes with student learning and prevents opportunity from reaching all corners of this land. There's no excuse for bad classroom practices at the local level. There's no excuse for bad policies at the State level, and there's no excuse for bad policies at the Federal level.

However, we should also make no excuses for good policies at the State level, make no excuses for good policies that help improve classroom practices at the Federal level.

Unfortunately, under this restrictive rule, many of the commonsense amendments that would have helped improve this bill were shut out, including an amendment that I authored that would combat bullying and harassment against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, to ensure that schools are a safe learning environment for all children.

Under this rule, other amendments that were offered by both my Democratic and Republican colleagues were not included and not allowed to proceed to the House floor for a debate.

My colleague, Ms. Foxx, said that ``local communities have the flexibility they need to meet the needs of their students.'' She stated that that was one of the goals of this bill.

I think the second goal that we should have with Federal education policy is, yes, to give local communities the flexibility to meet the learning needs of their students, but so, too, to not give local communities the flexibility to continue to not meet the needs of their students.

There are too many failing schools across our country--high schools that, year after year, have dropout rates in excess of 50 percent; elementary schools where kids are falling further behind every year.

We need to do everything we can as a society--that means at the State level, that means at the Federal level, that means at the district level--to make sure that, yes, the district has the flexibility and the school has the flexibility to do what works, but not the flexibility to continue to do nothing, which would only consign another generation of American kids, particularly and disproportionately our most at-risk families, to failure.

If the underlying bill becomes law, States wouldn't be required to set performance targets based on student growth, proficiency, or graduation rates. Effectively, it would allow States to define success down, simply to make themselves or their districts look good. The bill doesn't even define low-performing schools, nor does it establish parameters for intervention or timelines for improvement.

I have not heard any Member of this body, on either side, argue for Federal micromanagement. That's a straw man. We want to make sure that reform-minded superintendents are armed with the tools they need to make the tough decisions.

And there's no silver bullet in education. Sometimes it might be converting it into a charter school, sometimes it might be changing the staff, sometimes it might be closing a school, sometimes it might be an extended learning day.

One of the most critical aspects of successful school reform, in fact, is the local buy-in. And that's why I, as well as my colleague, Ms. Foxx, would agree that the Federal Government dictating what they should do is counterproductive towards effective school reform. However, continuing to do nothing is a guaranteed continued recipe for failure.

Mr. Speaker, we need to provide schools with more flexibility to design school improvement systems than the rigid measures under No Child Left Behind. I think we can agree on that. But we can't let them continue to do nothing and fail children.

No child in our country should be trapped in a failing school with little or no recourse or real choice. We need to mend accountability, not end it.

This bill constitutes the Federal Government throwing up its arms and simply letting the States define success downward, making themselves look good, patting themselves on the back saying, ``Job well done,'' when more and more children are falling through the cracks.

We need a Federal role as an honest referee, a disruptive force to break up school district monopolies. We need to use our limited funds to give reform-minded school leaders leverage and resources and cover that they need to ensure that failing schools are subject to dramatic interventions that improve school quality.

No child should ever be trapped in a failing school. And we, as adults, should not be finger-pointing, saying oh, that's the State, that's the district, that's the Federal Government, that's your principal's fault, that's your teacher's fault. That's not the answer. The answer is to make the school work for the kids and make sure that every family has access to a good school.

While No Child Left Behind certainly has its flaws, including the problematic and wrongful definition of adequate yearly progress as a benchmark for success, it, nevertheless, did move us forward when it comes to serving low-income and minority students, students with disabilities and English language learners, and provided a new layer of transparency that prevented school districts from sweeping these problems under the rug.

Unfortunately, here, with this bill, H.R. 5, it takes another step backward, effectively excluding students with disabilities from school accountability systems. Currently, there's a 1 percent cap, saying the students with severe disabilities up to 1 percent of students can take alternative assessments based on alternative achievements standards.

This bill removes that cap, meaning that school district or that State, at their discretion, under this bill can simply say, you know what? We don't think any of our IDEA students, any of our Special Ed students can learn, so we're not going to include them in the accountability metric. They don't have to take the test. Or if they do, we're not going to count it. Or they can do an alternative test, and we'll look at that and sign off.

And we will never know, Mr. Speaker, under this bill. It truly, in our publicly-funded public education system, is continuing to meet the learning needs of all kids, including those with disabilities or not, which is why, across the disability advocacy community, there is strong opposition for this bill.

It's rare that a bill can unite such disparate forces as the Chamber of Commerce, organizations representing teachers, the civil rights community, advocates for the disabled, all in staunch opposition to a bill. Why?

Because the bill represents a step backward for public education in this country. This bill doesn't invest in our Nation's teachers, the most important frontline workers that provide a quality education for kids across the country.

While, to its credit, it eventually replaces highly-qualified teachers with a new teacher accountability system that's tied into student success, which is a key component of my STELLAR Act that I introduced with Representative Susan Davis, it fails to provide teachers with the professional development and support they need to succeed in the classroom.

And during the 3-year transition period, it does away with all measures, indicators and requirements for teacher quality, including getting rid of the definition of highly-qualified teacher. So for 3 years, our Federal taxpayer money that we are custodians of will go, in part, to pay the salaries of people with absolutely no quality input or outbased controls.

While I applaud the eventual replacement of the definition of highly- qualified teacher, and most people agree that we can do better measurement of teacher quality, the answer is simply not to throw up our arms and say we're not going to look at teacher quality.

While H.R. 5 retreats on the significant and constructive Federal role, Ranking Member Miller's Democratic substitute advances a comprehensive vision of school accountability and improvement. The Democratic substitute would ensure that schools take into account student growth, proficiency rates, including disaggregation for groups, including students with disabilities, English language learners, minorities; design targeted interventions for low-performing schools; partner with school districts to use evidence-based criteria to improve school and classroom performance.

It is an advanced vision of school improvement that has received broad unified support from the education reform

community, the civil rights community, and the business community.

The Federal Government must ensure that all students receive a high quality, world-class education. We are a country. Education is under the local control of school boards subject to the laws of the State. As a Nation, we cannot abrogate on our responsibility to have a human capital development strategy that allows us to compete with other nation-states in the 21st century.

The Democratic substitute would ensure that schools set high expectations and use quality assessments for students with disabilities. We do not propose, in the Democratic substitute, nor does President Obama support any kind of national standard or national test.

Certainly, some States have chosen to work together to develop core common standards. Other States have developed other high quality standards and assessments. The Federal role should be to not allow States to define the success downward and capitulate the entire generation and consign an entire generation of children to failure.

I'm disappointed the Rules Committee didn't make in order my Student Non-Discrimination Act, which I introduced with Congresswoman Ros- Lehtinen and 155 of our colleagues. When you have a bill that has so many cosponsors, I would hope that the Rules Committee would at least allow a debate and floor vote on this bill.

My Student Non-Discrimination Act would establish a comprehensive Federal prohibition on discrimination in public schools based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

Every day, across our country, tragically, kids who are perceived to be gay or lesbian are subjected to pervasive discrimination, harmful to both students and our education system. Surveys indicate that as many as 9 in 10 LGBT students have been bullied.

Just this last week we lost another life to bullying. On Sunday, a young man named Carlos in New Mexico took his own life after being bullied and called derogatory LGBT names since the age of 8. It's hard to imagine the torment that Carlos went through every single day. And unfortunately, too many LGBT students and their families often have limited recourses to fight this kind of discrimination that makes schools an unsafe and unwelcome learning environment for them.

My amendment would simply provide protections for LGBT students to ensure that all students have access to public education in a safe environment, free from discrimination, free from harassment, free from bullying, intimidation and violence.

I would have hoped that every Member of this body would agree that there's a bipartisan consensus that, regardless of what people think of divisive social issues like gay marriage or other LGBT issues, school should be a safe place for all students to learn.

I am pleased that the underlying bill includes constructive language with regard to the expansion and replication of successful charter schools. I'm also pleased that the committee made in order two amendments I offered to improve this flawed bill. The first amendment further improves the Charter Schools Program. I enjoyed working with Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller on improving and modernizing the Charter Schools Program. Both the underlying bill and the Democratic substitute contain strong language around helping quality charter schools grow and expand to meet the demands of the more than 1 million kids who remain on charter school waiting lists across our country unable to attend the school of their choice.

A recent Stanford CREDO study found that charter schools that are successful in producing strong academic progress from the beginning tend to remain strong and successful schools as they grow and expand.

My amendment, which I'm offering with Mr. Petri, would allow charter schools to receive Federal funding through the Charter Schools Program to use their grant dollars for vital startup costs like professional development, teacher training, and instructional materials. As a charter school founder, I know that this additional flexibility provided under our proposed amendment would really help get quality charter schools off the ground.

The amendment also allows per-pupil revenue to be more portable across school districts to provide States with the ability to move towards more innovative multidistrict models, including online education or competency-based education, if they so desire.

Finally, my amendment would ensure that charter schools are doing substantial outreach to low-income and other underserved populations. We know that many high-performing charter schools are already leading in this regard in helping our most at-risk families achieve success. We want to ensure that they continue to lead the way in providing access and choice for more families.

I'm also pleased my amendment I offered with Representative Brooks regarding computer science is made in order. My amendment with Representative Brooks would clarify that Federal funds can be used for computer science education. It's particularly important because it relates to funding for teacher preparation and professional development based on the bipartisan Computer Science Education Act, which Representative Brooks and I introduced earlier this year.

In today's knowledge-based economy, it's more important than ever to ensure our education system aligns with the demands of the 21st-century workforce. We need high-quality teachers to have access to training in all relevant fields, including computer science education.

I also worked with Mr. Petri on another amendment regarding charter schools, which I withdrew. But I want to talk about some additional changes that are included in our All-STAR Act that I look forward to continue working with Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller to make crucial changes on the Charter School Programs that were included in my amendment with Mr. Petri.

The amendment I offered with Mr. Petri would offer improvements to help grow and replicate high-quality charter schools that are demonstrating outstanding results across the country. There's currently 6,000 charter schools serving more than 2.3 million students. Yet there are over a million students on charter school waiting lists. My amendment would have increased the overall authorization for this high- impact, low-cost program to $330 million so that with our limited Federal resources we have the maximum impact on increasing choice and learning opportunities for families.

My amendment would also have allowed for the continuation of the Charter Schools Program grants from the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Schools Program, a very successful program that helps more families access the highest-performing charter schools.

In this time of austerity and constrained public resources, we need to maximize the impact of every dollar spent by making sure we only invest in what works, fostering innovative new approaches both for results as well as for cost savings to achieve even greater gains in student achievement. That means investing in those public charter schools that are getting great results as well as allowing charter school operators with a strong evidence base of student achievement, particularly with our most at-risk kids and families, along with robust management capacity, to replicate and expand so they can serve more students.

I look forward to continuing the work with Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller to include some of those priorities in the ESEA reauthorization and further legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a former member of the Rules Committee.

The gentlelady said the U.S. ranks 18th on the quality and quantity of high school diplomas. This bill is a recipe to do even worse--worse on the quality by allowing States to define success and their standards down and worse in the quantity by removing graduation requirements as one of the issues that the Federal Government looks at with regard to the success of State formulas.

I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. Speaker, what I was going to discuss with the gentlelady is that the CutGo issue was resolved, as she mentioned, and waivers that are routinely granted on a broad variety of amendments simply could have been approved by the Rules Committee, as is customary, and advanced this amendment to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers.

I would like to inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

First, in response to the gentlelady's, Ms. Foxx's, allegation that Members on our side of the aisle have misrepresented the bill, that is completely false.

The bill does, in fact, remove the 1 percent cap for students with disabilities. A school district or a State can say, We are not even looking whether students with disabilities are making progress at all. Perhaps we are excluding every child with an IEP; we are excluding every child that receives IDEA funding, Federal funding, for taxpayer money that we are custodians for.

In addition, it allows States to define success downward. Rather than having meaningful college and career-ready standards, a State can simply say, We write our standards such that we are going to make all of our students brilliant because they are all going to pass it, then we are going to pat ourselves on the back and say, ``Job well done.'' Those kids might not be ready for college and they might not be ready for careers. We, as a nation-state, cannot afford not to do better with regard to serving our public kids.

This bill slashes education funding. I don't know how you call moving $3.6 billion worth of programs into a $2 billion block grant anything less than slashing education funding.

What is being eliminated? School improvement grants, turning around some of our lowest performing schools and giving them the opportunity to succeed. Race to the Top, which has encouraged reforms at the State level, including my home State of Colorado, which replaced teacher tenure with an evaluation system, with bipartisan support.

Investments in innovation: replacing these important, tangible programs that are some of the highest-leveraged dollars that the Federal Government spends, which is amorphously block-granting money to States, sending more money into the ``system'' without any reforms or any accountability required.

As elected officials who are concerned about our Nation's welfare and as providers of 10 percent of education funding, we in the Federal Government have an obligation to provide transparency and accountability and, yes, to be a referee in the K-12 education system. We have an obligation to ensure that schools cannot fail kids year after year. We cannot retreat from the goals of No Child Left Behind, and while it was flawed, it has shined light on achievement gaps for minority and low-income students, and has unleashed State- and local- based reforms that we are just beginning and continue to benefit from. We need to use what we have learned from our experiences under No Child Left Behind to build on what reform-minded States and districts are doing. We need to encourage flexibility, improve and streamline the Federal role, invest in what works, and change what doesn't work.

I look forward to working together across the aisle to provide more transparency, accountability and to ensure funding equity in our Nation's schools. H.R. 5 would bring us back to a time in which adults had every incentive to hide poor student performance and students were left to attend failing schools for generations--without choice and without recourse.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat this partisan bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on this restrictive rule and the bill. I encourage my colleagues to move forward in improving our public education system.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 303 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and I have been working to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Our efforts in reauthorization have centered on four principles: reducing the Federal footprint in education, empowering parents, supporting effective teachers, and restoring local control.

H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, ensures that local communities have the flexibility needed to meet the needs of their students. This legislation reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as ESEA, for 5 years, while making commonsense changes to update the law and address some of the concerns following the last reauthorization.

Despite good intentions, there's widespread agreement that the current law is no longer effectively serving students.

Instead of working with Congress to reauthorize ESEA, the Obama administration began offering States temporary waivers in 2011 to exempt them from onerous requirements in exchange for new Federal mandates from the Department of Education.

These waivers are a short-term fix to a long-term problem, and leave States and districts with uncertainty about whether they will again be subject to the failing law, and if the administration will change the requirements necessary to receive a waiver.

It is time to give students, parents, teachers, and school districts certainty to make decisions and flexibility to make the best decisions for their communities. H.R. 5 is a step in the right direction and will provide this certainty and flexibility.

Since Republicans returned to the majority in the House in 2011, we've held 20 hearings on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The committee considered five reauthorization bills in four markups in the 112th Congress, in addition to a markup and favorabe reporting of H.R. 5 this year.

I'm pleased to work with my colleagues on the Rules Committee to report rules for floor debate and the consideration of legislation that promote transparency and participation.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the Education Committee and the great State of Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn.

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

I yield the gentleman an 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Over the last four decades, the Federal Government's role in elementary and secondary education has increased dramatically. The Department of Education currently runs more than 80 K-12 education programs, many of which are duplicative or ineffective.

As a school board member, I saw how the vast reporting requirements for these Federal programs tie the hands of State and local leaders who want to make the best education available for their students.

Since 1965, Federal education funding has tripled; yet student achievement remains flat. More money is clearly not going to solve the challenges we face in education.

Our children deserve better. It's time to acknowledge more taxpayer dollars and more Federal intrusion cannot address the challenges facing schools. H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, will streamline the Nation's education system by eliminating more than 70 duplicative and ineffective Federal education programs; cutting through the bureaucratic red tape that is stifling innovation in the classroom; and granting States and school districts the authority to use Federal education funds to meet the unique needs of their students.

The bill also requires the Secretary of Education to identify the bureaucrats in Washington who run the programs to be consolidated or eliminated in H.R. 5 and eliminate those positions to ensure that the bureaucracy shrinks with the programs.

Additionally, this legislation will take definitive steps to limit the Secretary's authority by prohibiting him or her from coercing States into adopting academic standards like the Common Core. It also halts the executive overreach in the waiver process by prohibiting the Secretary from imposing extraneous conditions on States and local districts in exchange for a waiver.

The Student Success Act protects State and local autonomy over decisions in the classroom by removing the Secretary's authority to add new requirements to Federal programs.

Mr. Speaker, Federal policy should not tie the hands of local educators to make the best decisions for their students and communities. H.R. 5 is a step in that direction.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans do agree that schools should be safe places for all students to learn. However, as my friends and colleagues know, the amendment to which they have been referring had several parliamentary problems when it was introduced.

To begin with, it was not germane to the underlying bill.

Additionally, it violated CutGo provisions in House rules. My understanding is that although the CutGo issues were ultimately resolved, the amendment was not redrafted to fix the germaneness problem.

For these reasons, the amendment was not made in order.

No, not until I finish.

However, I appreciate the gentleman's strong feelings on the issue and respect his desire to protect students.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this bill, and I'm proud of the open and transparent process by which it has been brought up for consideration.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Our colleagues have said that H.R. 5 guts education funding. That is not accurate. H.R. 5 authorizes funding for all programs under the act as the final appropriated amount for ESEA programs in FY 2013. Those amounts are level-funded for the 6-year life of the bill.

While authorizing spending for the act at the final FY 2013 level, H.R. 5 prioritizes Federal spending by protecting core programs. Title I aid for the disadvantaged, as well as targeted population programs: migrant education, neglected and delinquent, English-language acquisition, Indian education, and rural education are authorized at FY 2012 levels.

Additionally, because the bill consolidates many existing programs, funds currently spent on those lower priority programs have been used to increase the authorization for these core programs. As a result, our bill would authorize more spending--I'll emphasize--more spending for these core programs in FY 2014 than the President's own FY 2014 budget proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 continues the charter school, magnet school, and tutoring programs to provide parents with more choices in educating their children.

Along with parental involvement, encouraging and supporting effective teachers in the classroom is critical to student success in quality education. Most Americans can regale you with stories of their favorite teachers who made a lasting impact on their lives. H.R. 5 also supports the development and implementation of teacher evaluation systems that are designed by States and school districts with input from parents, teachers, school leaders, and other stakeholders.

In addition to evaluation systems, the Student Success Act reduces confusion and duplication by consolidating teacher quality programs into a single, flexible grant program to be used by States in school districts to support creative approaches to recruit and retain effective educators.

The recurring theme throughout this legislation is empowering the people closest to students to make decisions for their communities and ensuring that the law is flexible to meet the needs of diverse States, regions, and student populations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is really puzzling why our colleagues continue to misrepresent what H.R. 5 does when the public can read the bill and know the truth. For example, our colleagues have said that H.R. 5 eliminates protections for students with disabilities, low-income students, and students from major racial and ethnic groups. This charge is simply false.

The Student Success Act maintains annual testing requirements in reading, math, and science. It also maintains the law's requirement that schools in districts disaggregate and report subgroup data on student performance. This ensures student achievement results for special needs students and other traditionally disadvantaged populations are transparent and parents and communities have the information they need to evaluate their schools properly.

Critics of this approach believe in the now widely discredited premise captured in No Child Left Behind that the Federal Government can and should devise an accountability system appropriate for all of the nearly 100,000 public schools in the country. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most widespread criticisms of what we have known as No Child Left Behind, which was really a reauthorization of this bill several years ago. It is puzzling to me that they continue to criticize what is

bad about what exists and yet say they want to do it again. It doesn't make any sense.

H.R. 5 is based on a different premise that true education reform comes not from the top down, but from the bottom up.

Acknowledging that Washington can't fix schools does not mean we are backing away from our strongly held belief that schools should have standards to which they are accountable and that those standards should be equally applied across all school groups. It means we must empower and trust States and communities, those closest to the classroom, to develop an accountability and school improvement system that best meets the educational needs of their students.

All of the wisdom of the world is not in Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker. It is out there in the country. It is out there with the local people, with the American people who are very bright and know how to do things for themselves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We do not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Many of my Republican colleagues and I feel that the Federal Government should be out of education altogether, but that is not what we are recommending here. Rather, H.R. 5 is a reasonable first step in empowering the people closest to the students to make decisions for those students.

That being said, as long as taxpayer money is being used by the Federal Government to fund education, Congress must ensure that funding recipients are being held accountable for how they use that hardworking taxpayer money. Washington must live within its means just as families all across this country do, and limited resources require wise stewardship. Again, those closest to the students--parents, teachers, principals, local school boards, school district leaders, and States-- know what works best for their diverse student populations.

The Student Success Act recognizes this by allowing States to develop their own accountability systems that incorporate three broad parameters: an annual measure of the academic achievement of all public school students against State academic standards; an annual evaluation and identification of the academic performance of each public school in the State based on student academic achievement; a school improvement plan to be implemented by school districts when schools don't meet the State standards. These broad accountability measures not only serve to steward taxpayer money carefully but ensure parents have the information needed to make the best decisions about their schools' education.

Let's give control back to the people who know the needs of their students and communities best, and let's pass this rule and underlying bill. We tried it the other way, and it hasn't worked. Control from Washington has not brought us improvement in our educational programs.

Mr. Speaker, my background as an educator, school board member, mother, and grandmother reinforces my belief that students are best served when people at the local level are in control of education decisions. I also believe that education is the most important tool Americans at any age can have. I was the first person in my family to graduate from high school and go to college, where I worked full time and attended school part time. It took me 7 years to earn my bachelor's degree, and I continued to work my way through my master's and doctoral degrees.

From my own experience, I am convinced this is the greatest country in the world for many reasons, not the least of which is that a person like me, who grew up extremely poor in a house with no electricity and no running water, and with parents with very little formal education and no prestige at all, could work hard and be elected to the United States House of Representatives.

No legislation is perfect, and that is why I look forward to working with my colleagues to address their concerns and improve the Student Success Act through the amendment process. However, I have never been one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and while H.R. 5 isn't perfect, it's a step in the right direction of reducing the Federal role in education, empowering parents, teachers and local school districts, and increasing local control. That's why I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The Student Success Act will take a critical step toward real reform of our education system. This legislation will restore local control, empower parents, eliminate unnecessary Washington red tape and intrusion in schools, and support innovation and excellence in the classroom.

As chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, I've heard countless stories of the amazing progress being made in schools across the country. This success isn't due to heavy-handed dictates from Washington; rather, it reflects the work of dedicated parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and State officials who decided the status quo is just not good enough for our kids.

In dozens of committee hearings over the last few years, my colleagues and I have had the honor of speaking with many of these reformers. We learned about the groundbreaking programs and initiatives they've implemented to serve students more effectively.

We listened to the ways they are working to hold schools more accountable, not just to the government but to their local communities and families. And we heard impassioned stories of how much more these dedicated reformers would do for our children if not for the slew of onerous Washington mandates and outdated regulations standing in the way.

Our children deserve better. But instead of working with Congress to fix the problems in current K-12 education law, the Obama administration chose to go rogue, granting temporary waivers in exchange for implementing the President's preferred reforms. Thirty- nine States and the District of Columbia are now beholden to new Federal standards crafted without congressional consent, representing an unprecedented expansion of Federal control over our Nation's classrooms.

It's time for a new way forward, Mr. Chairman, that starts with passage of the Student Success Act. This commonsense legislation reflects what we've learned from parents, teachers, and education leaders nationwide, and embodies four principles vital to a stronger education system in which all students have the opportunity to succeed.

First, the bill before us today will reduce the Federal footprint in our classrooms. For too long, Federal overreach has tied the hands of American educators. The Student Success Act will put an end to the administration's convoluted conditional waiver scheme and take concrete steps to rein in the Secretary of Education's authority.

The legislation also will eliminate more than 70 Federal programs, end the rigid Federal accountability metrics and overly prescriptive school improvement requirements, and grant States the freedom to develop their own plans to raise the bar, all of which will help ensure a more focused, streamlined, and transparent Federal role in the Nation's education system.

Second, the legislation will restore local control by providing States and school districts the flexibility they need to spend Federal funds where they are needed. School leaders know best which programs and initiatives will have the greatest benefit for their students' achievement. We must support policies that encourage more local decisionmaking and allow these knowledgeable school leaders and administrators to do what they do best: educate America's children.

Third, the Student Success Act recognizes a better education system cannot come without better educators. The legislation will eliminate Federal requirements that value credentials over a teacher's ability to educate students. Instead, States or school districts should develop their own evaluation systems based, in part, on student achievement, ensuring teachers can be judged fairly on their effectiveness in the classroom.

Finally, the Student Success Act will empower parents. No one has a better understanding of a child's strengths and challenges than his or her parents, and no one--no one--is more invested in making sure their child achieves his or her full potential. H.R. 5 provides parents more freedom and choice by reauthorizing and strengthening the Charter School Program and improving tutoring and public school choice initiatives.

We have an opportunity before us today, for the first time in more than a decade, to approve new K-12 education legislation in the House of Representatives. We have an opportunity to lend our support to legislation that will tear down barriers to progress and grant States and districts more freedom to think bigger, innovate, and take whatever steps are necessary to put more children on the path to a brighter future.

I urge my colleagues to join me in taking this critical step toward real reform, and ask you to vote ``yes'' on the Student Success Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes now to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute now to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon, a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck, a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, in an effort to balance the time here, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it has been 12 years since anybody in either body-- House or Senate--has had a chance to come to the floor in either Chamber and vote on education policy. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been overdue for reauthorization since 2007. When our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority or since we've been in the majority, neither party has been able to bring legislation to the floor in either body. Our children deserve better.

We've been in a situation for years now in which the Congress of the United States--House and Senate--has abdicated completely to this administration its responsibility for establishing public policy. This administration has been issuing conditional, temporary waivers to suit its idea of what education policy ought to be, not what the legislative body and not what the people we represent say it ought to be.

Our children deserve real reform of the Nation's education system. We can't allow these conditional waivers or temporary fixes or political infighting and an impasse here--whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in charge--to keep us from our fundamental responsibility to improve what is now, I believe, universally recognized to be a flawed law.

By passing the Student Success Act today, we can help ensure that teachers, principals, superintendents, and State and local officials have more opportunities to build a more responsive and effective education system that better meets the unique needs of every student and, in fact, yes, of businesses. A vote for this bill demonstrates our heartfelt commitment to reform, proving to families nationwide, Mr. Chairman, that the House of Representatives will not stand by and allow the administration to micromanage our classrooms or to defend the failed status quo.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment for H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For the first time in more than a decade, we are debating comprehensive legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in Congress. This law is woefully overdue for a rewrite. While some seem perfectly content to leave students and schools tied to an outdated law, my Republican colleagues and I know our children deserve better.

The legislation before us today will help schools across America raise the bar and better prepare our children for a successful future. It will support unique student populations, protect our Nation's most vulnerable children and help States continue to narrow achievement gaps. Most importantly, the Student Success Act restores the balance between the Federal Government's limited role and the responsibilities of State and local governments to deliver an excellent education to all students. I would like to highlight a few technical changes included in the manager's amendment that will improve the underlying legislation and strengthen our efforts to ensure all students have access to a quality education.

To encourage more local control, the amendment specifies State assessments must measure individual student growth at the sole discretion of the State. This ensures States have maximum flexibility in developing their own accountability systems.

To support effective teachers, the amendment also clarifies school districts may use funds for professional development programs, for civic education teachers, or to operate a civic education program, if they so choose.

To promote parental choice and engagement, the amendment makes additional improvements to the charter school program ensuring equal funding for credit enhancement and allowing schools to use that funding for predevelopment.

Finally, to further reduce the Federal footprint in our schools, the amendment clarifies States may opt out of funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act entirely, freeing them from any requirements that would otherwise come tied to those Federal education resources.

Mr. Chairman, nothing is more important to the future of this Nation than the success of our children, and right now Federal education law isn't helping students gain the skills and knowledge they need. Our children deserve better. With passage of this legislation today, we can take a critical step forward in the fight for real education reform.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and the Student Success Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, while I understand and appreciate the gentleman's concerns--and we've talked about this at some length over the year--the amendment reduces funding for title I programs. That's aid to the disadvantaged, migrant students, neglected and delinquent students, rural education, and English language acquisition to pay for the restoration and expansion of the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs. This reduces funding to States and school districts--about $64 million a year--that need title I funds to increase student academic achievement, especially with today's budgetary challenges.

The underlying bill upholds the Federal Government's trust responsibility to the Indian people. It reauthorizes and maintains a separate funding stream for the Indian education program as in current law and increases funding for Indian education over the FY13 level and over President Obama's FY14 budget. The manager's amendment adds Alaska Native organizations as eligible entities to the program as well.

Reluctantly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the Student Success Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I would be happy to do so.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me thank my colleague from Washington for her leadership on this important issue and for her remarks today. I understand the passion and knowledge she brings to this topic.

Throughout this reauthorization process, we have sought to recalibrate the Federal role in education, undoing the excesses of the past while maintaining provisions of the law that ensure parents and communities have the information they need to evaluate their schools' and students' performance. As the gentlewoman acknowledged, we do maintain requirements for disaggregated achievement data so special needs students' achievement won't be masked by high averages among all students.

On the topic of the gentlewoman's amendment, we do maintain current requirements that narrowly define the population of students eligible to take an alternate assessment. I believe these are important provisions that will limit the possibility of abuse by schools. That said, I share my colleague's desire to see all students, including those with special needs, succeed in school and beyond. And I'm happy to work with her and other Members on this issue as the reauthorization process continues.

Mr. Chair, I represent Virginia's two largest school districts, which have a combined enrollment of more than 265,000 students. As a parent and former member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, I know the success of our community and others across America is directly related to the quality of our local schools. Fortunately, we have strong local support for our schools, particularly within the business community, which recognizes the value of investing in our young people and future workforce. As a result, our community has the nation's premier high school for science and technology and strong academic achievement across all student groups. That has attracted families and employers to our region, which now is home to Virginia's largest public university and 10 Fortune 500 companies.

The long-overdue reauthorization of ESEA presents us with a tremendous opportunity to improve learning conditions for students and teachers. Sadly, the Republican bill before the House today retreats on that promise and, contrary to its title, will not provide the necessary tools for all students to succeed. H.R. 5 cuts federal education support by $1 billion next year and locks in the reduced levels of funding under sequestration for the foreseeable future. It also changes how those dollars are allocated, diluting services for low-income students and English language learners. That represents a disinvestment in our classrooms, and it will put our children--and our nation--at a competitive disadvantage. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce specifically cites the lack of rigorous college- and career-ready standards in opposing the Republican majority's bill. Fairfax County Public Schools Superintendent Karen Garza also expressed concern about the reduced level of funding in this bill, and I am including a copy of that letter.

I also am troubled by the changes being made in the standards for children with disabilities. For all of its flaws, one of the positive outcomes of No Child Left Behind was the fact that it held school districts accountable for the progress of every child, which provided students with disabilities the opportunity to learn--and in many cases master--grade level content and advance alongside their peers. The Republican bill will cast that success aside and allow states to teach and assess students with disabilities under an alternate, less- challenging set of standards. That is unacceptable, and it is one of the reasons why organizations such as the National Disability Rights Network oppose this bill.

Further, the Republican bill does not adequately address two other important programs that support students in our community. First, H.R. 5 eliminates the dedicated funding for before- and after-school programs that have a proven record for providing academic and social support, particularly for at-risk students, and for improving classroom achievement. For example, when I was Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, we received a federal 21st Century Community Learning Center grant. At the time, we were concerned with the growing rate of gang participation and gang-related crime being committed by young people. We used that federal grant to help expand our after- school programs from just 3 middle schools to all 26. Community and business partners also came forward to provide summer-school scholarships and mentoring support. As a result, gang participation dropped by half. Unlike H.R. 5, the Democratic substitute offered by Ranking Member Miller would create a separate dedicated funding stream to support before- and after-school programs so that we are offering positive enrichment opportunities for young people.

H.R. 5 also reduces funding for homeless students despite the fact that we've seen a 57% increase in the nation's homeless student population in the past four years as a result of the Great Recession. Even in my district, which is ranked as one of the wealthiest in the nation, we have nearly 2,500 homeless students in our classrooms. That is a 40% increase compared to five years ago. We must do more, not less, to support these young people who should not have to worry about where their next meal will come from or where they will sleep tonight while they try to navigate the social and academic challenges of a typical school day. The Democratic substitute will ensure more students suffering homelessness will receive the vital support they need to have some sense of stability in their lives.

Mr. Chair, the education of our children should not be driven by partisan ideology, yet that is what House Republicans have brought before us today. Their so-called reforms will, in fact, leave children behind. If we are to fulfill the promise of having a world-class education system, then we need to provide adequate support and funding for our schools, teachers, and students. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5 and to support the Democratic substitute so we can do just that.

Letter from FCPS Superintendent Garza

Honorable Gerry E. Connolly: We wish to share our comments

and concerns regarding the Student Success ACT (H.R. 5), a

proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA), which may be on the House floor later

today.

The Fairfax County School Board strongly supports the

ideals embodied by ESEA, namely that every child is capable

of learning and that every school and school division must be

held accountable for educating every student to his or her

potential, but has been deeply concerned about the intrusive

administrative and fiscal burdens placed on local school

divisions by ESEA in its current form. In terms of the

entirety of H.R. 5, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

agrees

with the position taken by the National School Boards

Association (NSBA); which supports the long overdue

reauthorization included in H.R. 5 in concept, but which

urges some significant changes (such as the reinstatement of

state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provisions as well as

removal of authorizing funding caps which would hold

appropriations to current sequestration levels and then

freeze them for five years) prior to its eventual passage. We

would also concur with NSBA in opposing any amendments

proposing to add private school vouchers or Title I

``portability'' to the legislation.

We specifically want to draw your attention to one possible

amendment to H.R. 5 which could have a very significant

impact on FCPS. It is our understanding that Congressman

Glenn Thompson (R-PA) plans to introduce language similar to

his All Children Are Equal Act (ACE Act, H.R. 2658), which if

adopted would have a significant negative impact on FCPS

Title I funding (a projected loss of $5.4M in Title I funding

over four years, see chart below) and on Fairfax students who

are living in poverty. We would urge you to reject that

amendment.

Title I is intended ``to ensure that all children have a

fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high

quality education.'' Students living in poverty and schools

with high poverty rates have educational needs that require

additional resources from Title I funding to ``level the

playing field'' regardless of their location. Some states are

divided into many small school districts, some of which have

only one secondary school and very few elementary schools.

Other states have designated school districts in alignment

with very large geographic counties, where districts may

include hundreds of schools. Large school districts may

include urban, suburban and rural-like components all within

the boundaries of one large division. Children and schools

located within ``pockets'' of poverty in a large district

have the same educational resource needs as those in smaller

school districts with fewer students. The diverse settings of

schools with high poverty rates from state to state require

diversity within Title I funding formulas so that schools

from both small and large districts can receive resources to

support needy students.

The particular amendment the House may consider seeks to

phase in a shift in the funding distribution formula for

Title I from calculations that are currently based on both

absolute numbers of students in poverty as well as on

percentages of students in poverty, to one reliant only on

percentages. Given Fairfax's size (with over 180,000

students); FCPS has a relatively low overall poverty rate but

a very significant number of students in poverty. As of 2011,

there were an estimated 15,915 children between the ages of 5

and 18 living at or below the poverty rate in Fairfax County.

That number exceeds the total student population in all but

15 jurisdictions in Virginia (there are 133 total school

divisions in Virginia). While Fairfax's overall percentage of

free lunch eligible students was just over 20% in the 2011-

2012 school year, 22 Fairfax schools had a free lunch

population of greater than 50% (with the highest schools

having over 74% eligible students). In total, over 46,000

Fairfax students are eligible for the free and reduced lunch

program, which has an eligibility threshold of up to 185% of

the poverty rate.

For small school districts, the percentage system can be

advantageous, as they may not have large absolute numbers of

students. For larger school districts with ``pockets'' of

poverty, the absolute number system may level the playing

field so that schools with high poverty rates may receive

appropriate resources, even though the overall poverty rate

of the entire division may not be as high as a smaller

division with fewer schools.

If only the percentage system were used, as would be

proposed by Rep. Thompson's amendment, students in high

poverty schools in larger school districts would lose Title I

funding support. Students in poverty are not able to choose

whether they live in a small or large school district, nor

can they determine the percentage of poverty in the school

district in which they live. Nonetheless, regardless of where

they live, their needs are similar and they deserve

equivalent access to Title I resources.

The current system, which includes the options of both the

percentage and absolute number calculations, provides a

balanced approach for both small and large districts, and

thus provides necessary Title I resources for students in

high poverty schools, no matter where they live. For these

reasons, the current two alternative weighting systems,

percentage and absolute number, should be continued in

calculating Title I funding allocations, so that students in

high poverty schools can equitably receive Title I resources

whether they live in a small or large district.

FCPS would strongly support additional overall funding for

the Title I program should that be part of the discussion,

but again urges you to reject Rep. Thompson's Title I formula

amendment if it is introduced. If you have questions or

concerns, please feel free to contact Michael Molloy,

Director of Government Relations, Fairfax County Public

Schools at MAMolloy@fcps.edu or 571-423-1240. Thank you for

your consideration and your support of the Fairfax County

Public Schools and public K-12 education.

Karen K. Garza, Ph.D.,

Division Superintendent, Fairfax County Public Schools.