John Kline

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I will just take a few seconds here. I do appreciate the gentleman's passion. As the gentleman pointed out, the Department of Education, the government already has the ability to conduct such research. Much research has already been done. I think the State and local governments will make decisions that is best suited for their districts. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, even though I am opposed to it. I agree, the evaluation of Federal programs is important, and we need to better understand what works in education. It is for that reason the underlying bill already places an emphasis on better evaluation for the programs included in the bill. We do not need yet another Federal program overlaying a new strategy on top of the current evaluations required and allowed. While I agree very much with the importance of the issue, I must oppose the amendment, as it is unnecessary and duplicative. I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, even though I am opposed to it. Being bilingual, multilingual, is clearly a helpful skill and much sought in the private sector and in government. I think back to my days in school, and at one time I was conversant, if not fluent, in both Spanish and German, and now I can barely read the menu--or speisekarte--having let that lapse. I just do not think we need yet another Federal program, and the gentlewoman's amendment authorizes another $10 million for this program to get a government seal of approval. I think the students can speak, read, and write for themselves and should be encouraged to learn those languages, become proficient, stay proficient, but the last thing they need is the Federal Government creating yet another program to determine what certifies them as bilingual. So while I certainly agree with the gentlelady's emphasis on the importance of being bilingual or multilingual, I nevertheless must oppose her amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking the gentlewoman for the amendment, although I do oppose it, and commending her for the outstanding work that she has personally done in this area of mentoring and helping kids get through school and off to a life with hope, rather than a life of crime and gangs. She has done remarkable work. As the gentlewoman knows, there are currently more than 80 elementary and secondary education programs in current law. This bill, the underlying bill, eliminates 65 of these programs, as we tried to allow schools more flexibility to do what they feel is most important with the money that they are getting. The gentlewoman's amendment calls for another $125 million of spending in the first year and such sums thereafter. I am afraid this is yet another Federal program that will be chronically underfunded and competing for funding that the schools so desperately need. While I admire her passion and her personal hard work in this field, I continue to oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, while obviously I disagree with a great deal of what my friend and colleague has just said about what this underlying bill does, I think it is going exactly to the core of the problem that we see with the current law, No Child Left Behind. This bill is designed to give much greater flexibility to superintendents and to local school boards so that they can dedicate funds to the areas where they are needed most. The gentleman's amendment, as I mentioned earlier, is not helpful in this effort because of the language in the underlying bill. While I appreciate that he doesn't support the bill, I disagree with his description of the bill and would urge my colleagues to oppose his amendment and support that underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, regretfully, I continue to oppose the gentlelady's amendment. I ask my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I do thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, even though I must oppose the amendment. I would say that we do miss him on the committee. I would say that in my district, like his, we certainly have rural schools. In fact, I was thinking about rural schools the other day. My wife went to such a rural school. It was called Country School because it was a one-room schoolhouse, and how heartbroken she was when she was forced to go to the big-city school--population 1,000--for the city. So we do know something about rural schools. The underlying bill, the Student Success Act, does maintain the rural education programs in the bill, and under the local academic flexible grants, districts can support the use of digital learning if they believe it is the best way to use those funds. The bill already allows every district to determine what they need for their students and not have to abide by priorities set by Washington. So while I greatly appreciate the gentleman's passion for rural schools--and I think I share that passion--I just firmly believe we don't need yet another new Federal program. We are working to provide flexibility so that schools can put the resources where they need them the most. And so I must oppose the gentleman's amendment, ask my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman in her stead for this amendment, although I do oppose it. I think most of us agree that there is great value to early childhood education. That is why the underlying bill would allow States and schools to use funds allocated through both the local academic flexible grants and under title I to support pre-K programs. As I know the gentleman knows, we already spend--the Federal Government--over $13 billion a year in pre-K programs. The premier program, which is Head Start, spends over $8 billion a year. And I think we should concentrate on getting those right instead of creating yet another new, massive program that would simply compete with other programs for scarce taxpayer resources. So while this is somewhat duplicative, another large program, I appreciate the gentleman's passion for pre-K learning. But, unfortunately, because we don't, in my judgment, need yet another new program when we haven't properly evaluated existing programs, I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, listening to my friend from Colorado talking about how great this program would be, I was thinking about, over the years, how do you get to 80 programs in the Federal K-12 program and get multiple pre-K programs for child care and child education? It is because, year after year, Members of Congress have stood up and talked about how wonderful things were going to be, how much money we were going to save, how much brighter the kids would be if we just had this one more program. And so it grows, and so it grows. Again, the thrust of this legislation is to look at the programs we already have, to make the most of them and, in the underlying bill, the Student Success Act, to give the maximum amount of flexibility to local school superintendents and school boards so they can put the resources where they need them. So I must continue to oppose the gentleman--or the gentlewoman's amendment. I think you were subbing for Ms. Meng, perhaps. I am not sure. I ask my colleagues to oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for offering this amendment, even though I am opposed to it. The Federal Government has taken a very active role in improving STEM education. In fact, in a count I took a couple of years ago, there were over 200 Federal STEM programs, but our multibillion-dollar investment is failing to produce strong results--not because of lack of funding, but because of too much bureaucracy. Let's stop throwing money at new programs and instead provide States and local districts the flexibility to invest in programs that produce more efficient and effective results instead of Washington's priorities. I agree with the importance of this issue for the future of our skilled workforce, but I have concerns that it introduces yet another Federal program. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, but urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I do oppose the amendment.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this amendment, although I do oppose it. This amendment would require that annual statewide assessments measure student growth and include such growth in that State's accountability system. Under the Student Success Act, the underlying bill, States are already allowed to include student growth measures in their accountability system if the State chooses. Adding a Federal mandate is contrary to this bill's purpose of returning control to the hands of the State and local education leaders; therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from the cold north of Minnesota for his very excellent amendment. We know in Minnesota, as we know across the country, that the state of many of these Indian schools are just absolutely deplorable. He described that very well. It is appalling that sometimes it has taken us 10 years to identify a problem, and we can't do anything about it. We are compromising the education of vulnerable children; we are compromising their health and safety, as my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) said; and we are certainly compromising their education and their hopes for a better future. That is why we have got to look more closely at this issue. That is why I did write the letter to the Director of the BIE to begin a dialogue. That is why we will hold, in the coming weeks, a hearing to dig into this. We are badly organized, shall I say, in the government sometimes and in the Congress. So one committee is looking at one thing, and then nobody is looking at another, and nobody is paying attention to something else, and we have let this deplorable situation develop. We have got to do better. The gentleman's amendment will help in this regard. I very much appreciate that he did it. I am very, very supportive of this amendment because it makes this bill a better bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KLINE

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

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

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