Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, one of our greatest responsibilities is to keep our country safe and invest our resources wisely, especially when it comes to securing the safety of our country. The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program is a missile system that is supposed to be designed to deflect missiles from rogue states like Iran and North Korea. That would be great if it worked. It is a system with a long history of failure, and military leaders have expressed doubts for years about the viability of this program. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, which would return the funding level for the GMD program back to the Pentagon's own request level in the fiscal year 2014 Defense appropriations bill. Specifically, my amendment cuts funding for the GMD missiles by $107 million and applies those savings to deficit reduction. Lacking a single successful test intercept since December 2008, the GMD program is simply a failure so far. These repeated failures unfortunately have not stopped us from continuing to authorize over $1 billion for the GMD program to purchase 14 additional missiles on top of the 30 we already have in the NDAA Act of 2013. The Government Accountability Office has noted that the testing of the system to date has been insufficient to verify that it will function as intended, and there was a most recent test failure on July 5 which supports that assessment from the GAO. Americans want a missile defense system we can count on. We need to ensure that our missile defenses are tested and are actually capable of keeping our families safe and don't merely provide the illusion of safety. Before we continue to build an arsenal, we should make sure that it works, as custodians of taxpayer funds. Now, of course, those on the other side will argue that we need to make sure that in an ever more dangerous world we need to have and invest in the missile defenses to protect against the threats from Iran and North Korea. Of course, I agree. The issue is whether this works or not and whether we should reward failure as a Congress and as a country, or whether we should invest in success. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we should invest in success and not reward failure. We need to be candid about the challenges we face. Deterring threats and encouraging diplomacy is crucial to keeping America safe. Our national security, the safety of Americans is too important to rely on programs that have failed test after test when we need to have confidence that when we need them, they will work. If we are serious about cutting wasteful spending here in Congress, we need to be willing to take a close look at programs like the GMD and find ways to trim spending and increase our national security. We can do this by building a leaner, more agile, more affordable military that is suited to the 21st century, while being diligent in ensuring that our existing systems can keep us safe and operate as they are intended to. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. It is just simple business sense. It doesn't save money to preorder something that you don't know works. You don't do that in business. We as a country shouldn't do it. This is not a theoretical discussion about advance purchasing or economies of scale. When things work there's a legitimate discussion about that. It is absolutely foolish--foolish--to throw good taxpayer money after bad before our system has proven to work to keep America safe. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. To be clear, Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves taxpayer money and actually reduces the deficit by over $100 million. I will be happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. I salute the leadership of Chairman Kline who fully understands the public education side and the military side. We are bringing forth this amendment as another opportunity to make sure that what is already clearly the will of this House, as articulated through the NDAA, actually comes to pass. Very simply, this is a provision that ensures that any student who receives a diploma from a legally operating accredited secondary school in compliance with the education laws of the State and district in which the person resides is given the same opportunity to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces as a traditional bricks and mortar high school graduate. This includes graduates of online schools and hybrid schools who completed their secondary education and earned a degree. Currently, these classified students who attend online schools are called tier 2 for purposes of military enlistment. What this effectively means is they can enroll in the military; however, on the Armed Forces qualification test, they have to score 50 or higher instead of 31 to 36, depending on the service branch, for a bricks and mortar high school. What we should care about in public education and in the military is preparedness for the job, not what particular type or model or size or shape of school that they went to. From the military perspective, we need young men and women who are capable and able to execute their responsibilities to serve our country. From the education perspective, we want to encourage innovation, and we shouldn't be sending a message--and this body has spoken clearly and has the opportunity to speak clearly again--that we discourage innovation within public education. We should not say that just because a particular school is distributed or doesn't have a bricks and mortar campus, as long as it is fully accredited by a school district and held to the same standards as any other public school, that should not be dealt with in a separate way in this matter. Congressional intent is clear. The NDAA bill includes language to not let the DOD make a distinction between graduates of traditional high schools and those who attend online schools. This amendment would ensure that all students are held to the same standard when it comes to being eligible for military service. That is why I am proud to join Chairman Kline and Representative Paulsen, leaders for charter schools and education choice and online education, to propose this amendment to the defense authorization act which would ensure that no funds are used to give a lower enlistment priority to students from online schools as compared to traditional bricks and mortar high school diploma graduates. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fleming amendment. I think there is a basic misunderstanding here about the needs of people who lack a particular faith tradition. I would also point out that we already ordain nontheistic chaplains in our military, including Buddhists, which is a nontheistic faith. Some Unitarians may also have a nontheistic faith tradition. However, over 20 percent of the members of our military identify as nonbelievers. While, of course, their needs should be catered to by members of the chaplaincy from diverse faiths, it's only fair to have their humanism, or outlooks, represented. Now, why is this different than a reason a member of the military might seek support from a medical professional or from a psychologist as the gentleman has argued one should? Those are different needs. A psychiatrist or a medical professional is not equipped to answer those kinds of existential questions that a member of the military might seek out to discuss with a chaplain: Why am I here? What's the meaning of life? How do I justify the use of force? People who are nontheistic in their outlooks and who are humanists wrestle with those same existential questions as those of us of faith. So I strongly encourage my colleagues to not adopt an amendment that would be restrictive on the military. Now, to be clear, the military has not announced plans to move forward with ordaining humanist chaplains; but what this amendment does is to lock in place a 2004 rule, placing it in statute and preventing the military, even if they feel the need should arise for the good of the chaplaincy, from having the flexibility they need to appoint humanist chaplains. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Armed Services Committee. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for his efforts on behalf of the chaplaincy. I agree with his interpretation of the rules and responsibilities of the chaplaincy. And we try to represent the diverse faith tradition of the men and women who serve. In that faith tradition are those who look at objective fact, free thinkers, humanists, atheists. They too have the same mentoring, spiritual existential needs as others. And, of course, just as Catholics have to handle the needs of Jews and Muslims in the service and Buddhist chaplains handle the needs of others, they're all trained to handle the needs of soldiers. We also want to make sure we have a chaplaincy that reflects the broad diversity of belief systems. Over 20 percent of today's members of the military don't have a theistic outlook, are nonbelievers. That's an important thing to represent in the chaplaincy. Many major universities have humanist chaplains. Hospitals have humanist chaplains. Many of our allied European militaries have humanist chaplains. As one of the other gentlemen argued, there is no political goal or secular agenda here. We simply want to make sure the military is not prevented from providing chaplaincy services for the men and women who put their lives at risk defending our country every day. Every man and woman who serves should be able, when the need arises, to have a private consultation with a chaplain; and we should include in the chaplaincy people who represent the full diversity of the beliefs of the quality of men and women who serve. Increasingly, there are seminaries who prepare humanist chaplains for ordination and work in the field, in hospitals, in universities, and again in the militaries that have them. I personally hope that this is a direction that our military considers in the future. We ran a similar amendment that would move it in this direction to an authorization bill; 150 Members voted for it. I'm confident even more Members will want to vote against restricting the military from moving in this direction. Again, to be clear, the Obama administration and the military have given no indication that they want to go this way; but as we reassess our ongoing personnel needs and how best to support the men and women who serve, I believe that many members of the military will come to the conclusion that this is an excellent way to do this. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond briefly to some of Chairman Kline's introduction. I think both sides can agree that there are flaws in No Child Left Behind. AYP is a flawed formula. Personally, I think the answer reflected in the Democratic substitute is to get accountability right, not take a step back from accountability. The chairman mentioned that ``now we have more information about the quality of teachers and schools'' thanks to No Child Left Behind. And to his credit, in the initial draft bill, we replaced after 3 years the teacher evaluation system. However, unfortunately, that was amended on the floor with the Scalise-Bishop amendment. So I think one thing we can be assured of in the underlying bill is it will lead to less information about the quality of teachers and any assurances that our Federal funds are going to fund teachers that have any kind of qualification or in fact are effective. The Democratic substitute takes into account student growth, proficiency rates, graduation rates, and designs targeted interventions to help turn around our lowest-performing schools. Whereas H.R. 5 guts education funding, the Democratic substitute provides funding for critical programs like STEM, school turnaround grants, safe and healthy students. This amendment would help invest in our Nation's teachers' quality. I strongly support the Democratic substitute and call on my colleagues to make sure we move forward in education reform to help serve all kids in our great country.

Mr. POLIS

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

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

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

Mr. POLIS. 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.)

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentlelady yield?

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

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this Chamber, this body here at the Federal level, is simply the wrong venue, the wrong place, to be discussing this issue of Common Core Standards. If the gentleman and others are interested in making sure that their States or their districts don't adopt them, they need to run for State House, they need to run for Governor, they need to run for State board, State superintendent. This body here, the Federal Government, has absolutely nothing to do with Common Core Standards, nor should we have a role in trying to prevent States from working together, which symbolically this amendment does. I think it's great that my State and a number of others have taken advantage of economy in scale to prepare good college and career-ready standards. I think it's terrific that States like Virginia and Minnesota, outside of the working group of Governors, have come up with their own core standards for college and career-ready that are different but also high standards. There's different ways to get there. And again, if any folks in this Chamber feel passionately about that, they ought to run for a different office because it's not this body that decides on standards. I think it's the wrong reason to come here and try to force any particular standard down any State's throat. Very clearly, I think it's great some States are working together. My State is among them. It is very important that we don't have a race to the bottom with regard to standards. One of the dangers of this underlying bill is that it encourages that. It encourages States to define mediocrity as success by lowering their standards and showing that all students are achieving when achievement means nothing and the very definition of the word is diluted. So, yes, we, of course, have a Federal interest as a Nation in making sure that kids from Alaska, from Minnesota, from Texas, and from Colorado are ready for college or ready for career. And if some States want to work together to develop those standards that can save money, save time, be convenient for families to move between those States, if other States want to take it upon themselves to engage in that; but certainly what this amendment insinuates, that somehow States are being coerced to do a certain thing, is contrary to Secretary Duncan's testimony before our committee and contrary to fact. And anybody who disagrees, frankly, needs to run for a different office to advocate for or against a particular set of standards.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. It is rare, Mr. Speaker, that more than two-thirds of the United States Senate agrees on anything. It's rare, Mr. Speaker, when two-thirds of the American people agree on anything. And yet the Senate, with 68 votes, passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will finally replace our broken immigration system with one that works: one that works for our economy; one that works for American families; one that helps grow jobs; and one that restores the rule of law to an underground system where people continue to live in an underground economy here in our country today. There are 11 million people here in our country illegally. The American people are fed up with the violation of the rule of law and of our sovereignty. It's time to fix our broken immigration system in a way that's consistent with our values as Americans. We are a Nation of immigrants; we also are a Nation of laws. It's time to reconcile those two truisms. Take up the Senate bill in the United States House of Representatives, send it to President Obama's desk, and finally fix our broken immigration system to make it work for our country.