Providing for Further Consideration of HR 5, Student Success Acy

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, this point of order revolves around this entire bill being an unfunded mandate for the States; but, frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is about the work of this body and the work of this country.

Rarely in my time in Congress has this body proven itself as detached and reckless as we do today. We are just over 24 hours away from an automatic shutdown of one of our Nation's greatest defense systems to keep the American people safe, and this body--one of only two bodies with the authority to prevent that shutdown--has no plan.

President Obama made a suggestion last year that we treat families humanely, that we retain the best and brightest of each new generation, we welcome those willing to fight for their citizenship, just as we welcomed my great-grandfather and yours. He did that because this body failed to move forward on a profamily, pro-America agenda.

These are not novel concepts. We stand on a Nation settled, built, and grown by immigrants. When the President acted to give immigrants across this country hope, consistent with actions taken by prior Presidents, he acted to uphold not only the law, but one of our greatest American traditions.

Yet, touting a fundamentally antifamily and un-American agenda, Republican House leadership has made endless attempts to prevent the President's lawful action from taking place. With each repeated attempt to override our constitutional checks and balances, House Republicans are playing games with our time and taxpayer money and, right now, frankly, playing games with our national security.

Time has kept this body from focusing on real issues facing our Nation. The security of our Nation should not be sacrificed for a political agenda, nor can the livelihoods of those who put themselves on the line as our first responders and to protect American soil.

A failure to fund DHS would block critical assistance from reaching snowstorms and wildfires. It could mean a delay in FEMA funding to rebuild communities after disasters like the floods that affected my hometown of Boulder and nearby towns of Loveland and Longmont. It could impede air and ground travel safety and mean withholding of pay from already overworked TSA and CBP workers.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has come to an agreement, by a vote of 98-2, on consideration of a clean DHS funding bill. I am a cosponsor of a similar bill in the House. The bill extracts politics from the conversation about immigration in exchange for the interests of the American people.

It removes the irrelevant policy riders that undermine the lawful authority of the President of the United States and, instead, focuses on keeping the Department of Homeland Security open through the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, this House has the opportunity to bring forward a clean DHS funding bill. We can always continue with Republican political stunts after we secure the safety of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutiérrez).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Reclaiming my time, I think what you are saying is if the Republicans shut down the Department of Homeland Security, the only thing the Department will be able to do is to process the paperwork for undocumented immigrants, and they won't be able to fulfill their functions keeping our Nation safe.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

If Congress doesn't act, the Department of Homeland Security will shut down in 2 days. Republicans are playing a very dangerous game with our Nation's security. Today, I am giving the House a fourth chance to have a straight up or down vote on a clean DHS funding bill.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 861, which will fund the Department of Homeland Security through the end of fiscal year 2015 without any poison pill provisions. We need to put an end to this stalemate and take immediate action to keep our country safe.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, a lot of my colleagues have made unanimous consent requests. I, too, would like to make a unanimous consent request, and I yield to myself for that purpose.

I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would ensure that Border Patrol agents, TSA screeners, Coast Guard members, and Secret Service agents would continue to be paid for protecting the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Since we are 2 days away from the Department of Homeland Security shutting down, compromising the ability of the Border Patrol, the TSA, and the Coast Guard, who does have the authority to call up H.R. 861, the Department of Homeland Security funding bill?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Well, it looks like we are going to talk about education. Now, that is a very important topic. I agree with my colleague, Dr. Foxx, and I am glad that none of the time that we have been trying to fund the Department of Homeland Security has in any way detracted from this important debate.

I think the point that has been made is that here we are, barely more than 24 hours from compromising the security of our country. Yes, of course, the education debate is critical; but couldn't we take a moment to approve one of those unanimous consent requests?

Probably in the time it took to hold them all, we probably could have had a vote on the bill which would have passed and actually prevented a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

Again, we are here to talk about the rule under which H.R. 5, the bill that reauthorizes ESEA, will be considered under. Now, this effort and this bill--and ESEA is very near and dear to my heart and my career experience.

Throughout my career, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity and been blessed to have been involved with education policy and on the ground in a number of different ways and levels.

I served as chairman of the Colorado State Board of Education. I launched a network of public charter schools for English language learners. I cofounded a charter school for homeless youth and youth in transitional housing.

I have sat for several years on the House Education and Workforce Committee. My district is home to Colorado's two flagship universities, CU Boulder and CSU in Fort Collins. On a more personal level, my son C.J. is approaching the age where he is going to begin school this fall.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that, throughout my career, education has always been my top priority because I have personally seen the difference that it can make in people's lives, from early childhood education and quality preschool and kindergarten, all the way through adult education programs to help make sure that adults have the ability to have good jobs in a changing workforce.

Almost every day, one of my constituents contacts my office about education. Just last week, I met with several principals to talk about the need for good, professional development in schools.

Last week, I heard from a parent that is concerned about the culture of overtesting in her son's school. Just yesterday, a constituent of mine told me about her own upbringing and success in Colorado schools.

Today, we are considering H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. This bill would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education--by the way, Mr. Speaker, if you can't handle the gavel, I will be happy to take it myself.

Put more simply, this bill is about the Federal role in education policy. Now, there are a lot of problems with No Child Left Behind. I think that is something we hear from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, something that all of us have heard in our constituencies, from families, from teachers, from School board members, pent-up frustrations at the lack of change in almost 15 years of a policy that had several failings that we knew about right away--whether it is the flawed and superficial mechanism of AYP, or Adequate Yearly Progress, whether it is the frustrating paperwork and bureaucracy that it puts sometimes ahead of education.

This is a very important piece of legislation, and it should be treated seriously. Unfortunately, this

House hasn't held a single hearing on education before moving forward with this bill. The Chamber and the committee haven't held any hearings on this important legislation. When asked, the chairman, Chairman Kline, said that: Well, the committee held hearings before in several other years.

But this is a different Congress. There are new Members. Our own committee has new members who have never gotten to witness a single hearing on education before moving through with an incredibly important piece of legislation.

I will be part of this debate in the coming hours if this rule passes regarding the amendments around this bill, the content of the bill itself. As my north star, what I look for in a successful reauthorization of ESEA and replacing No Child Left Behind with the Federal education law that makes sense is really threefold.

Number one, we must get accountability right; number two, we must expand and replicate what works in public education; and, number 3, we must change what doesn't work in public education.

Let's talk about getting accountability right. Unfortunately, this bill falls short in this regard. It has an enormous loophole that threatens to drive underground and remove the accountability for kids with disabilities.

That is why this bill is opposed by a number of groups that represent children with disabilities, special education teachers, and all those who are concerned about how the 12 or 13 percent of children in our schools that receive special education services succeed.

What mechanism is that loophole? Well, here is what it is. There is a number in ESEA, No Child Left Behind, 1 percent. That is a cap on the number of kids that are allowed to be given an alternative assessment.

Now, clearly, there will be some kids that can't have an ordinary assessment, some of the most severe-needs special education kids. It doesn't even matter that much what that number is, as long as it is reasonable, whether it is half a percent or 1 1/2 percent, whether it is three-quarters of a percent or even 2 percent. What is important is that it is uniform and it reasonably approaches the kids that are unable to take the test.

What this bill does is it removes that cap altogether. It says States can administer alternative assessments that are not included in the mainstream accountability program to whomever they want--meaning a State that might not be teaching or serving kids with special needs could simply say: All kids receiving special education services and IDA services, all 12 percent of our district or our State, will take this other assessment that will not be incorporated in the mainstream accountability.

That is what the special-needs community fears, and it is a very reasonable fear because, look, we are elected officials, Mr. Speaker. I think some of our friends and perhaps people who are not our friends have become Governors of other States. Former Members of this body have become Governors.

Guess what, Governors aren't too different than people in this body. They like to look good. They like to look like they are successful. They don't want to create a dataset that shows that they are failing kids.

It is much easier to dumb down the standards and exempt children from the testing, and that is the second part of accountability that this bill gets wrong. It allows for a dumbing down of the standards.

One of the great steps that No Child Left Behind and the President built upon with his Race to the Top initiative is that States need to have college and career-ready standards.

There is a mechanism in place to make sure that those standards are certified by institutions of higher education within a State, meaning that if you graduate a high school with a diploma, you ought to have the academic skills needed to succeed in college. If not, what does a high school diploma even mean?

Unfortunately, what this bill does is it takes out that backstop of college and career-ready standards, as certified by the public institutions of higher education in the State, allowing another glaring loophole for States to define success downward to make themselves look better.

Now, let's talk about replicating and expanding what works. On that account, this bill does somewhat better. Now, I wish it included our innovations in education amendment which we offered in committee and, again, on the floor that, unfortunately, was not allowed. It is a very highly leveraged way to invest in high-promise programs that work.

It does have some excellent language around replicating and expanding successful public charters schools, as well as several amendments that would strengthen and build upon that language as well.

Finally, with regard to what doesn't work in education and changing it, this bill also falls short. We need to invest in real change in schools that aren't working.

One thing that this bill guts are the teeth behind the turnaround models in turning around our low performing schools. There is no guarantee that these investments would be data driven or that they would work to ensure that some of our most persistently low performing schools would improve and allow children a chance to succeed.

Now that this bill might be coming to the floor, Members should at least have the opportunity to amend and improve the bill.

Now, in our Rules Committee meeting yesterday, I supported an open rule for amendment to H.R. 5. Frankly, there was a lot of bad amendments offered to this bill that were blocked. There were also a lot of good amendments that were blocked.

Now, there were 44 amendments that are allowed to be considered under this bill, and I am grateful that two of the five amendments that I offered will be voted on here today as well, as well as the Democratic substitute that our committee ranking member, Mr. Scott, put forward as supported by the Democrats on our committee.

Mr. Scott's substitute ensures that the spirit of the ESEA, as Federal civil rights legislation, is maintained and built upon.

One of the amendments that I will be talking about later would encourage charter schools to work closely with public schools to collaborate and share best practices, tying into the second principle of ESEA reauthorization: expand and replicate what works in public education.

Another one of my amendments would allow States to use funds for the creation and distribution of open source textbooks, resulting in significant cost savings for the States. It is simply an allowable use and can save many districts and charter schools money.

In addition, I want to highlight another few amendments that were very important that will be allowed under this bill.

Representative Susan Davis' amendment would amend the definition of school leader and ensure that principals are receiving the full amount of professional development as the funds are available to them.

Mr. Castro's amendment seeks to improve the college and career readiness of homeless youth.

These are just a few of the amendments from my Democratic colleagues that I look forward to supporting today.

Now, although these amendments were in order, there were also several positive suggestions that would have been improvements to the bill but, unfortunately, won't be coming to the floor under this rule.

For instance, an important amendment by Representative Langevin would have required States to have college and career-ready standards, addressing that glaring loophole in the base Republican bill. Unfortunately, that amendment wasn't brought to the floor.

Another example is a colleague of mine presented an idea which is on the tips of many of our tongues--and, frankly, I would have liked to have seen defeated on the floor of the House, but it wasn't even allowed a vote.

Representative Salmon offered an amendment that would completely eliminate Federal testing. Now, I think it would have been great for this Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to defeat that amendment and make a powerful statement that we believe in accountability.

Yes, we believe that where taxpayer money goes, taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, we won't have the opportunity to make that statement.

A number of other amendments that would have improved the bill or would have provided an opportunity for Members of this body to do their work have, unfortunately, been prevented under this rule.

I look forward to discussing the merits of the rule and the merits of the bill. I have a number of colleagues who have joined us on the floor to join us in this discussion as well, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Before I get back to education, I want to point out that there is a very unusual component to this rule. There is something called self-executing language, which means that the rule is effectively like a bill, and the language is around a very hot button divisive topic--namely, abortion.

There is actually a provision in this rule that effectively becomes a passed bill--it is self-executing--that would defund school-based health centers if they have any information about referrals or directions or any abortion-related materials.

In fact, the language is so vague, they wouldn't even be able to display, under this, antiabortion-related materials. It says:

The center will not provide abortion-related materials, referrals, or directions for abortion services to any such student.

It would essentially prevent a school from providing information to a child about alternatives to abortion, like adoption or other options that a young parent might have, to be able to stay in school.

If this rule passes with this self-executing amendment, I believe that the number of abortions will increase in the country as a result. This is an anti-choice, pro-abortion measure that has been inserted into this rule, and it is very restrictive on our school districts.

It is a very unusual procedural tactic. I have never seen, in my 6 years here, a rule used for self-executing language around a divisive topic like abortion.

No debate on the amendment--even these other amendments on education under this bill, they have 10 minutes of debate, and they have 20 minutes of debate. This is a secret attempt to get language into a bill that we were not even shown, I think, 3 minutes before we voted on it in the Rules Committee yesterday--just another example of the problems with this ad hoc lawmaking process without the right thought going into bills.

I don't even think that the sponsor of this, who is Representative Neugebauer, meant to exclude information about alternatives to abortion or other options that people might choose; but, unfortunately, the language of the self-executed amendment would prohibit that as well.

Mr. Speaker, instead of engaging in these partisan fights, I wish that at least one of our unanimous consent requests had been granted to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. We are instead discussing a very divisive bill.

Some of my colleagues talked about funding. I want to elaborate a little more about what this so-called portability was. Portability sounds great. Of course, funds should follow the student.

The net effect of this version of portability that is in this bill is that resources are transferred out of schools that serve a lot of at-risk and poor children to schools that serve a lower percentage of poor or at-risk children.

What this means in districts like mine or districts across the country is, on the ground, schools that serve 60, 70, 80 percent low-income families will lose two staff people, three staff people--in some cases, maybe even four staff people. They will lose teachers. They will lose paraprofessionals. They will be taken out of their budget, and they would be added to the budget of some of the wealthier schools in the district.

Now, look, if we all want to add staff to all schools, I mean, my goodness, if we can find funding to add staff to some of the wealthier schools--I know that there are many schools that have a lower socioeconomic risk in my district--parents would love more staff, but the right answer is not to take those staff out of the schools that serve the most at-risk kids.

That is what this bill does, which is why no Democrats on our committee supported it. It is a step in the opposite direction. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to even get to the discussion of getting accountability right--expanding and replicating what works and changing what doesn't work and encouraging innovation--when the basic funding parameters of the bill do the opposite of what we need to do: take money out of the schools that serve the most at-risk kids which, under whatever accountability system we use, are likely the schools that need more investment.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule with the self-executing abortion language, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source