Student Success Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, even though I am opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, States should have good textbooks for students that cover the material thoroughly, fairly, and most importantly, accurately. But there is no Federal role in determining what those books are or judging the quality of them, frankly. All the arguments the gentleman makes can be taken care of at the State level and at the local level.

I fail to see how they would get any better result in any of his examples by having some Federal bureaucrat hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from the situation do any better job with it. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government already is prohibited from weighing in on things like curriculum and standards. There is absolutely no role for the Federal Government in approving or overseeing the adoption of textbooks. I think that is a bad idea. It leads us on a slippery slope to even worse outcomes.

So it is in that spirit and that vein that I must oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues, all of them, Republican and Democrat, to do so as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, again, for his concern, but I fail to see how this Capitol can do any better a job in solving the problem than the gentleman's State capitol or at the local level. The government that governs best is the government that is closest to the people, and that serves this situation well.

Having nothing further to offer on this, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for this amendment, although I must oppose it.

This amendment adds back specific Federal requirements for paraprofessionals. These provisions place too much emphasis on a teacher's credentials, degrees, and licensing. As a result, schools have come to value a teacher's resume over his or her ability to increase student achievement, i.e., their effectiveness.

The elimination of these requirements in the Student Success Act does not prohibit States or local school districts from having requirements for teachers and paraprofessionals, but certainly, it is not the job of the Federal Government to tell States and locals what those requirements are.

Because of that, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chair, in closing, I would like to say that the whole theme, the whole purpose of the Student Success Act is the fact that we trust teachers, parents, local policymakers, local taxpayers more, thinking that they can do a better job than anyone out here in Washington, D.C.

The arguments the gentlemen make are certainly good ones. Standards are a good thing; they should be made at the local and State level. The government that governs best is the one that is closest to the people. That is what the Student Success Act, in large part, is about.

The gentleman from West Virginia indicates that he is the grandfather of a special needs child. I am the father of a special needs child. As one of the authors of the Student Success Act, I think these standards can be well adopted at the State and local level, and that is where they should be adopted.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment because it simply goes back to the status quo of current law, which ties the hands of State officials over budgeting.

What schools and States need is less Federal control and greater flexibility, not the opposite. We need to stop thinking that we know what is best for States, and that includes telling them how much to spend on various areas of their budget.

I want to be clear that the statutory civil rights provisions in current law are kept. We don't have that issue with this bill.

I want to also make the point that just because you spend more money on something doesn't mean you get a better result. Since 1970, Federal education spending has increased 300 percent in this country, while test scores have remained flat. So just increasing funding levels isn't necessarily the answer.

The fact of the matter is an MOE directs the States' and individuals' property, i.e., their money, to do things that really we shouldn't be telling States or localities or individuals what to do with.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, research indicates reliable, high-quality child care is critical to sustaining parents' ability to work. That is why the legislation would allow States and schools to use funds allocated through what we call the local academic flexible grant under title I to support pre-K programs. Instead of creating a Federal program, as I see this amendment, it improves the coordination between existing Head Start programs and local educational agencies.

This amendment improves the underlying bill, I think, and strengthens existing early childhood care and education programs for children in low-income families.

As a cosponsor of the bill, I would like to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. Again, I think it improves the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for this amendment, although I must oppose it.

It is my understanding that this amendment is unnecessary in the sense that, during the last Congress, the House adopted a nearly identical amendment offered by the gentlewoman when H.R. 5 was considered at the time. Because it was adopted, her original amendment is included in the base text of this version of H.R. 5; therefore, this amendment is duplicative of existing language.

Mr. Chair, I would politely say to the gentlewoman that she fails to see just how persuasive she was in the last Congress, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, not because of the underlying idea, but because it is simply duplicative of existing language.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kline) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source