John Kline

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Secretary of Education to conduct a study to examine underperforming school districts, whether equal educational opportunities are being afforded to students in those school districts, and the impact of closing these school districts. Mr. Chairman, as the amendment clearly states, this is a State activity in which the Federal Government has no role and should not be involved. We do not need recommendations from the U.S. Department of Education on how States are to protect the constitutional rights of students. This is the law of the land today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the Student Success Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When No Child Left Behind was signed into law more than a decade ago, it was heralded as groundbreaking, and certainly in many ways it was. The expanded use of data helped superintendents, principals, and teachers pay more attention to the students with the greatest need. Parents now have more access to important information about the quality of teachers and schools, and some student achievement gaps have narrowed. However, hindsight is 20/20, and we can now clearly identify the law's weaknesses: The Adequate Yearly Progress accountability metric is a one-size- fits-all mandate that fails to provide schools any meaningful information about their performance; The law's Highly Qualified Teacher requirements value credentials over an educator's ability to motivate students in the classroom; Strict mandates and funding restrictions stunt the development of innovative local education programs. The Student Success Act will correct the mistakes of the past and provide States and school districts the flexibility they need to put more children on the path to a brighter future. Flexibility, Mr. Chairman, I might say, has been begged for, demanded, year after year since this law passed. Superintendent after superintendent and principal after principal has said to me: I don't need money here, but I've got it. I need the money over here, and I can't spend it. If I just had more flexibility, we could take care of making sure that all these kids get the education that they deserve. The substitute offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply continues the same failed policies we're seeking to correct and encourages greater Federal intrusion in classrooms. No matter what you call it, AYP, or any other rigid Federal accountability system is still the wrong approach. Replacing the existing law's 100 percent proficiency target with a menu of equally unrealistic goals is not the answer. Enshrining the unprecedented control over schools assumed by the Obama administration, rather than supporting the innovation occurring at the State and local level, is not the answer. This substitute also fails to meaningfully consolidate programs or give States and school districts greater freedom to use Federal funds. It includes outrageous and unrealistic authorization levels that Congress and the administration will never come close to meeting. I welcome meaningful contributions from my colleagues across the aisle. But a substitute that doubles down on the status quo is not what students, parents, or educators deserve. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the underlying bill that will empower the Nation's parents, teachers, principals, and school administrators to deliver the educational system our students need, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, we apparently agree on both sides of the aisle that parents should be making decisions; parents should be in charge; parents need information. We believe in the underlying bill that we are giving parents the information they need, the control they need, the choices they need, giving their children the best chance to succeed. I think we agree on both sides of the aisle that the status quo is not working. In fact, the administration is engaged in instituting its own education policy through its conditional waiver scheme. It's moved so far down the line, Mr. Chairman, that they've even offered waivers to the waivers. And yet it's been 12 years since this body, or the Senate, or the United States Congress has passed an education law--12 years. It is time for the Congress, the House, and the Senate to step up and do its job and write new law and get the administration out of the business of writing education policy. I would hope that Republicans and Democrats would recognize that it is not the role of the administration, of the Department of Education, of the Secretary, or the President to write education policy-- Republican or Democrat in the White House. It's our job to do it. It's time to do it. I don't believe the substitute amendment is the right thing, and I oppose it. I'm asking my colleagues to oppose it. I believe the underlying bill moves us in the right direction and gives children a better opportunity. So I'm going to encourage my colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment, despite the passion that surrounds it, and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, what States and school districts are asking for and have been asking for and clamoring for is more flexibility and less Federal mandates so they can address the individual needs of their students. We should not tie the hands of school officials and predetermine how they can best help their students and staff. Instead, this motion will force them to jump through hoops and meet burdensome requirements. This motion is full of requirements. Some might be good, most will be burdensome, but at the heart, this is a motion that says my Democratic colleagues do not believe our school leaders and teachers have the best intentions for their kids, they do not trust them to know how to take care of their students, and we disagree. I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and support the Student Success Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 5, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, including the changes now at the desk.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. 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. KLINE. 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. KLINE. 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).

Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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