[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 8, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4879-H4887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, STUDENT SUCCESS ACT, AND 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2647, RESILIENT FEDERAL FORESTS ACT 
                                OF 2015

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 347 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 347

       Resolved, That during further consideration of 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, pursuant to House Resolution 125, it shall be in 
     order to consider the further amendments printed in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution as though they were the last further amendments 
     printed in part B of House Report 114-29.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2647) to expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     and improve forest management activities in units of the 
     National Forest System derived from the public domain, on 
     public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, and on tribal lands to return resilience to 
     overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments 
     specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Agriculture and the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committees on Agriculture and Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 114-21 modified by the 
     amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a

[[Page H4880]]

     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.

                              {time}  1245


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a House rule, House Resolution 347, providing for 
consideration of two important pieces of legislation for which I am 
honored to be able to bring forward for consideration by this 
legislative body: H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, 
and H.R. 5, the Student Success Act.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2647 under a structured 
rule with four amendments made in order, a majority of which were 
offered by our Democratic colleague Members of the House. The rule also 
provides for further consideration of H.R. 5 under a structured rule 
with four additional amendments that were made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2647, the 
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, a bill that is critically 
important to my district in central Washington State which is, 
unfortunately, once again facing another devastating wildfire season.
  This bipartisan, comprehensive legislation is aimed at expediting and 
improving forest management activities in Federal forests. It builds 
upon many legislative concepts introduced in this and in previous 
Congresses to address disastrous consequences of catastrophic wildfire, 
insect and disease infestations, and other threats to our Nation's 
forests.
  H.R. 2647 would return resilience to the overgrown, fire-prone 
forests that encompass a great deal of land in the Western United 
States. It would dramatically improve the health and resiliency of our 
Federal forests and rangelands by simplifying environmental process 
requirements, curtailing project planning times, and reducing the cost 
of implementing forest management projects, all while still ensuring 
robust protection of the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, just last year, my district in central Washington 
endured the Carlton Complex fire, the largest wildfire in our State's 
history, which was responsible for the destruction of over 300 homes 
and businesses. This devastating, catastrophic wildfire crippled many 
parts of my district, and many of my constituents are still trying to 
recover; yet it seems, as soon as we start to move past one major 
wildfire, another is immediately on our doorstep, literally.
  Almost 10 days ago, new fires broke out in Washington State in cities 
like Wenatchee and Quincy and counties, including Benton, Chelan, 
Grant, Adams and Douglas, immediately spreading and some requiring 
Washington State fire mobilization resources to keep them from 
escalating. As the West continues to face severe drought conditions, 
the threat of wildfire will only continue to worsen.
  In order to begin to prevent and address these fires, we need to 
reform the way we prepare for, respond to, and fund wildfire response 
and mitigation efforts. We cannot continue to limp from one devastating 
fire season to the next, leaving little to no time, and even less 
funding, available for reforestation, rehabilitation, and overall 
forest management.
  This bill addresses those shortcomings by providing new methods of 
funding, which will tackle the problem of fire borrowing. It also 
includes tools the Forest Service can implement immediately to treat 
thousands of acres of forest land at a lower cost.
  Earlier this year, the House Natural Resources Committee's 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands, of which I am a member, held a hearing 
on this bill. One of the witnesses testifying was U.S. Forest Service 
Chief Tom Tidwell.
  In his opening comments, Chief Tidwell remarked that ``the Forest 
Service is encouraged by many of the goals outlined within'' the bill 
and ``welcomes legislation that incentivizes collaboration and expands 
the toolset that we can use to complete critical work on our Nation's 
forests without overriding environmental laws.''
  I believe these comments reflect the bipartisan nature in which the 
legislation was drafted and highlights the necessity of the reforms we 
are considering here today.
  Mr. Speaker, it should also be noted that, because of the reforms and 
streamlined authorities in this bill, there will be an increase in 
acres of treated land, all at no additional costs to taxpayers. This 
legislation is essential and desperately needed to change the current 
path of forest management on public lands, which is outdated, 
unsustainable, and dangerous.
  This rule also provides for further consideration of H.R. 5, the 
Student Success Act, an education reform bill that reduces the Federal 
Government's footprint and restores local control over education by 
eliminating wasteful and duplicative Federal programs and replacing 
them with guidelines that maintain both high-performance expectations 
and appropriate levels of funding.
  This legislation provides local governments with the flexibility 
necessary to develop appropriate strategies with which to serve their 
students, parents, and communities.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as No Child Left 
Behind, has been due for reauthorization since 2007. Because it has not 
been reauthorized, the administration has been free to circumvent 
Congress and impose its own vision of education reform on the country, 
resulting in unprecedented intervention in local education issues.
  The Student Success Act addresses this overreach by streamlining and 
eliminating more than 70 elementary and secondary education programs 
that have been deemed ineffective and instead promotes a more focused, 
efficient, and appropriate Federal law in the Nation's education 
system.
  H.R. 5 will eliminate the current one-size-fits-all Federal 
accountability requirement and replace it with State-determined 
accountability systems designed to maintain high expectation for our 
Nation's schools. Additionally, the bill supports and encourages 
parental engagement in their children's education by helping parents to 
enroll their children in charter schools and allowing title I funds to 
follow low-income children to the school of their parents' choice.
  Mr. Speaker, a well-educated workforce is imperative to the health 
and vitality of both our Nation's children and our economy. The Student 
Success Act will benefit students, parents, teachers, and school 
administrators by returning responsibility for student achievement to 
the States and local communities while maintaining high standards and 
expectations for our Nation's students, teachers, and schools.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for 
consideration of two critical pieces of legislation that will help 
protect our rural communities, provide much-needed reforms to our 
education system, and ensure that we are prepared to respond to 
devastating and catastrophic wildfires that have plagued many areas of 
our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule's adoption; I urge my colleagues to 
support both the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning, I got to meet with one of the 
superintendents from my district, Bruce Messinger, superintendent of 
the Boulder Valley

[[Page H4881]]

School District. Bruce told me, as so many others have over the 
previous years, how the outdated policies under No Child Left Behind 
stifle innovation and burden teachers and principals with a culture of 
overtesting.
  I remember a lot of these concerns well because I served on our State 
Board of Education in Colorado from 2000 to 2006, when we were 
originally implementing No Child Left Behind; and just as we are now 
frustrated, we were then frustrated with the lack of flexibility, the 
fact that solutions were coming out of Washington rather than honoring 
our local accountability system in how we were able to make things work 
locally, and a formula, adequate yearly progress, that we knew wouldn't 
work.
  We knew that we wouldn't have 100 percent proficiency in all 
subgroups within a decade. We knew we needed reasonable goals to look 
at student achievement growth rather than the 1-year picture. Since 
that time, there has been additional discretion given through a policy 
of waivers that have been given in many States, including my home State 
of Colorado, but I think we can all agree that it is past time to 
reauthorize and replace No Child Left Behind with a Federal education 
policy that makes sense.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is not that 
policy that makes sense. One need go no further than the very beginning 
of the bill in the sense of Congress section on page 7, just to see 
some of the Tea Party paranoia that underpins a lot of this bill.
  It starts out on page 7 as a finding of Congress saying that the 
Secretary of Education, through three separate initiatives, has created 
a system of waivers and grants that influence, incentivize, and coerce 
State educational agencies into implementing common national curriculum 
programs of instruction and assessments for elementary and secondary 
education, which is just patently false.
  First of all, I believe this is a reference--incorrect of course--to 
the Common Core standards. Now, first of all, standards are different 
from curriculum. Standards are certainly different from programs of 
instruction which stem from curriculum, and standards are different 
from assessments.
  Common Core was an effort of the States to create college- and 
career-ready standards. What the Federal Government and Secretary 
Duncan have attempted to do is say States need to have college- and 
career-ready standards.
  We can't define success downwards and say that kids are passing the 
test because it is a low test, it is an insufficient test. Whether 
States want to do it through Common Core or other mechanisms and other 
types of standards, they are welcome to do it.
  Now, none of that--and the most factually erroneous part--none of 
that has to do with curriculum or program of instruction. Those are 
entirely developed at the local level. Standards and the grade level 
expectations are one thing, as anybody involved with education knows; 
curriculum is another.
  This bill starts with a false premise. It starts with a premise that 
somehow Washington is trying to run local school districts. That has 
never been the case, nor should it be the case. If that is the 
beginning of the essence of our cooperation, I think we can work 
together on a bill that empowers teachers, empowers local school 
districts, and empowers States with an accountability system that makes 
sense and the resources they need to meet the learning needs of all 
students.
  Now, more than a decade has passed since Congress has authorized No 
Child Left Behind. While again, there are some good intentions in this 
bill, and there is some good language--which is also reflected in our 
Democratic substitute--it is far outweighed by some of the unintended 
consequences of the harmful language which will hurt students that is 
in this bill.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me give a little refresher on how we got here. 
In early February, Chairman Kline introduced this bill. The bill was 
introduced without input or buy-in from Democrats, and it was drafted 
with zero committee hearings on ESEA.
  The bill immediately went to markup and was passed along partisan 
lines. The bill resembles a bill last session that passed this Chamber 
with zero Democratic votes. This bill is actually worse from my 
perspective and the perspective of Democrats, for a number of reasons 
that I will get into, than the bill that attracted zero Democratic 
support last session.
  This bill was brought before the House in February. It was then 
pulled. Look, everybody can agree that this is a bad bill. Teachers say 
it is a bad bill; principals say it is a bad bill; parents say it is a 
bad bill; the civil rights community says it is a bad bill; 
disabilities advocates say it is a bad bill, and the business community 
and the chamber do not support this bill.
  I think--and I am sure they will mention it--the only group that we 
can even find that supports this bill are superintendents. I am sure 
they will find a few more. We will have an enormous record of 
disability groups, civil rights groups, teachers groups, and many 
others that oppose this bill for a number of reasons, and those reasons 
are correct.
  If it looks bad, if it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and 
it quacks like a duck, it really is a duck. It is hard to bring 
together the business community, the civil rights community, and 
teachers unions around anything; and to bring them around saying that 
this bill will result in less educational opportunities for American 
kids really is a crowning achievement.
  We need a bill that prepares the next generation of our workforce 
with the skills they need to succeed.

                              {time}  1300

  We need an ESEA reauthorization that helps improve American 
competitiveness in the global economy. We need a bill that expects the 
best of teachers and gives teachers the respect that they deserve as a 
profession. We need a bill that cares about students with special needs 
and gives them the support they need. We need a bill that allows for 
innovation in our schools. We need a bill that protects lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, and transgender students from discrimination and bullying; 
and yet both times that I offered an amendment to include the Student 
Non-Discrimination Act, it was not allowed in the Rules Committee. And 
we need a bill that ensures that every child in America has access to a 
world-class education, regardless of their ZIP Code, their race, their 
background, their socioeconomic class, or their sexual orientation.
  The Democratic substitute that Mr. Scott has offered and will be 
debated and voted on is a strong step forward and reflects many of 
these priorities. It would have been wise for Chairman Kline and the 
sponsors of the bill to take a closer look at Mr. Scott's Democratic 
substitute and to have considered many of those provisions in the 
underlying bill.
  Now, I do want to point out a few of the good provisions in the bill, 
all of which are also reflected in the Democratic substitute and are 
generally reflected in some of the language being debated in the Senate 
as well.
  As the founder of a public charter school network called the New 
America School, I understand how the freedom to innovate and 
flexibility to pursue a unique mission can help public charter schools 
achieve the highest levels of success.
  The New America School has campuses in two States--Colorado and New 
Mexico--serving over 2,000 students from 40 countries. Just a few years 
ago, I was honored to speak at its Colorado graduation, and it was 
moving to hear the tales of some of the immigrant students who were 
served by this school.
  There is excellent language around the charter school title V 
programs in both the Democratic substitute and nearly identical 
language in the underlying bill that ups the bar on charter schools and 
makes sure that the districts and States have best policies surrounding 
accountability for charter schools and makes sure that successful 
charter school models can replicate and expand to serve more students.
  I am also pleased that two of my amendments to H.R. 5 were made in 
order and have already passed the House in the previous debate in 
February. One of my amendments encouraged collaboration among charter 
schools and traditional public schools, and another amendment allowed 
funds to be used for open educational resources to help save districts 
and students money on textbooks and other programs. These resources 
that are

[[Page H4882]]

open source, which are licensed but free to use, can reduce the burden 
of overtesting and can help reduce costs in education.
  Now, there is not a lot more to say with regard to the positive 
provisions of this bill, but I want to talk about one of its biggest 
shortcomings and, namely, getting accountability right.
  We can all agree that No Child Left Behind did not get accountability 
right, but the answer is to move forward and improve upon and make 
accountability work, not to take a step backward, which is what this 
bill does, by having a misguided set of principles defining performance 
targets and accountability.
  In fact, if this bill were to become law, States would not be 
required to set performance targets based on student growth, 
proficiency, or graduation rates. The bill doesn't define low-
performing schools, nor does it establish any parameters for 
intervention when we know a school isn't working.
  One of the most compelling things that we can do here in Washington 
is equip local superintendents with the toolbox they need to help turn 
around persistently failing schools, and this bill fails to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, we should provide schools with more flexibility to 
design school improvement programs that No Child Left Behind does, but 
we should not provide schools with the option to do nothing and allow 
dropout factories to continue to exist, elementary schools where we 
know that kids are falling further and further behind every year.
  No child should be trapped in a failing school with no recourse. We 
need to fix accountability, not step away from it. This bill 
constitutes the Federal Government throwing up its arms and letting 
States define success downward to make themselves look good while 
leaving more students behind.
  This problem is compounded by another amendment that was not even 
previously discussed that has now been allowed under this rule, namely, 
the Salmon amendment, 129, which is universally opposed by civil rights 
groups from the NAACP to La Raza to the Urban League to LULAC to the 
Education Trust.
  The Salmon amendment assumes that disadvantaged students aren't 
capable of high achievement, perpetuating low expectations that are 
projected on students of color, poor students, immigrant students, 
students with disabilities, and others.
  This amendment effectively gives in to those political pressures 
which we all feel that work against disadvantaged students, that work 
against them at the district level because often their parents are not 
enfranchised members of the community or voting in school board races 
or serving on the board that work against them at the State level 
because they are up against the special interests and, yes, work 
against them here even in Washington.
  This body needs to stand up for disadvantaged communities, needs to 
stand up for African Americans, Latinos, immigrant communities, those 
students with disabilities and ensure that any deficiency in the 
quality of instruction for disadvantaged communities is not swept under 
the rug as the Salmon amendment would do.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
reject the Salmon amendment.
  While No Child Left Behind certainly had its flaws, it did move us 
forward in continuing to serve low-income and minority students, 
English language learners and students with disabilities.
  H.R. 5 is a step backwards. Even without the Salmon amendment, it 
excludes students with disabilities from school accountability systems. 
The bill eliminates the 1 percent cap on alternate assessments based on 
alternative achievement standards.
  Now, again, there is a real-world problem to be solved. There are 
some kids with learning disabilities so severe that they can't be given 
a test for accountability purposes. And that 1 percent number is an 
arbitrary number. You can argue it should be half a percent, you can 
argue it should be 1\1/2\ percent. That is a very legitimate discussion 
to have. And I would be fully open, as many of my colleagues were, to 
figuring out what that number is.
  The answer is not to eliminate that number and effectively allow a 
State that might serve 12 percent of a population with students with 
disabilities to say none of those students will be tested; none of 
those students with individual education plans, none of those students 
who might be dyslexic will be looked at in terms of how they are 
learning.
  Do you know what? My father was dyslexic, and it took him until fifth 
grade to learn to read. But under provisions of this bill, he might 
never have learned to read because he and millions of other Americans 
with disabilities would be completely swept under the rug with the 
elimination of the cap.
  This bill also fails to invest in our Nation's teachers. In February, 
I introduced the Great Teaching and Leading for Great Schools Act, 
which would advance a new definition of professional development based 
on research and best practices.
  Professional development doesn't have to simply be hiring someone to 
lecture teachers for a few hours while they are all bored. In fact, 
there is better proven, data-proven ways that can help advance teaching 
and learning in schools, including collaborative peer networks, 
feedback from teachers and principals, tying data in to ensure that our 
professional development opportunities work. Unfortunately, H.R. 5 
eliminates any requirement that ensures quality professional 
development for teachers.
  Now, let me talk about one of the most concerning provisions in this 
bill to Democrats, including myself, and it has an innocuous name. It 
is called title I portability. It sounds like a good concept. It says 
that Federal aid for students of poverty would follow the student.
  Now, that sounds good, again, just as that finding that somehow the 
Federal Government should never do these programs of destruction in 
national curriculum sounds good. But again, it is devoid of facts.
  Let me tell you what the effect of this provision would do. What this 
provision would do is it would shift millions of dollars from schools 
that serve our most at-risk kids to schools that serve wealthier 
children.
  The Center for American Progress recently released a report that 
broke down exactly what the language would mean for high-need schools 
in each State. In Colorado alone, schools that serve students of 
poverty would lose over $8 million of funding.
  So again, let's talk about how this works.
  There is a threshold in each school district for schools that receive 
title I free and reduced lunch services. They are focused on the 
schools that serve the largest pockets of poverty.
  In a school district like Boulder Valley School District whose 
superintendent was in to meet with me earlier today, they offer title I 
services in their schools that have about 40 percent or more free and 
reduced lunch kids. That allows them to focus on the eight or nine 
schools that have the highest need in what is overall a fairly 
prosperous school district.
  If this provision were passed, resources would be diverted out of 
those schools that are in our neediest communities to the schools that 
are in our wealthiest communities.
  As our ranking member has said and probably will say again, what 
problem is it you are trying to solve by shifting resources from poor 
schools to wealthy schools? While, again, it is a noble concept, and if 
there were a way to hold harmless or provide additional support for 
schools that serve at-risk kids, there might be some basis of 
discussion with myself and Members on my side of the aisle; but to 
simply say that we are going to shift tens or hundreds of millions of 
dollars from schools that serve kids in communities of poverty to 
wealthier schools, under any possible accountability metric, I 
guarantee you, will only increase the already persistent learning gap 
that exists between communities of poverty and prosperous communities, 
and is exactly the wrong way to go with regard to how we target our 
Federal resources to make the biggest difference in the lives of 
Americans who deserve access to quality public education.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate my colleague on the other side of the aisle's enthusiasm 
on this issue. This is an important topic, something that we have been 
discussing and debating for many, many

[[Page H4883]]

years and will continue to, because all of us want to do right by the 
children in our school districts. They are our future. We have an equal 
amount of enthusiasm on our side of the aisle.
  At this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the good 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support not only of the rule, but of the underlying 
legislation with reforms that are included not only in the bill, but in 
the amendments that are coming forward in this rule.
  I first want to commend Chairman Kline and his staff for working over 
the last few months with many members of our Conference that had some 
real issues they wanted to see addressed in the bill. I want to talk 
about a few of those, specifically, the Salmon amendment that this rule 
makes in order that brings forward the ability for parents to opt out 
of testing in a way that doesn't impact the local school system.
  This comes down to a question of whether or not you trust parents to 
make the right decisions for their children in making real reforms that 
give parents more control, getting Washington out of those decisions 
and allowing local innovation to move forward, and allowing parents to 
make those decisions about what is best for their children. So the 
Salmon amendment does that. I strongly support it, and I know Chairman 
Kline supports it as well.
  I want to also point out the Rokita-Grothman amendment. This is an 
amendment, again, that Chairman Kline worked very closely with a number 
of our members on to bring forward to reduce the timeframe of the 
authorization. Instead of a 6-year authorization, it would be a 4-year 
authorization to give an opportunity to let the next administration put 
their own prints on what they want to see in terms of education reform 
while allowing these other reforms to move forward. That is an 
amendment that Chairman Kline supports, as I do, and, hopefully, gets 
added to the bill.
  The third amendment I want to talk about is the Zeldin amendment. 
This is an amendment that gets the Federal Government out of Common 
Core, not only financially, but also taking the ability away from the 
Secretary of the Department to use things like Common Core as a 
bludgeon when they are determining whether or not to approve waivers. 
So I think it is very important to get the Federal Government out of 
those decisions of Common Core, and that is what the Zeldin amendment 
does.
  And then, finally, the Walker amendment, allowing a vote on A-PLUS, 
is something that I support, and I am glad that that is in the rule as 
well.
  So many good reforms, not only with the amendments, but with the 
underlying bill, to give parents more control and get the Federal 
Government out of those decisions, really good legislation to advance 
conservative causes in letting innovation happen at the local level.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wilson), the ranking member of the Education and the 
Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher, elementary 
school principal, and school board member, I know firsthand that No 
Child Left Behind is in need of serious improvement. Improvements must 
take substantial steps towards fulfilling the promises made by ESEA, 
those simple, yet powerful, promises that are at the heart of this 
civil rights law, promises made to all American children.
  H.R. 5 ignores these promises and endangers the educational gains 
made in the 50 years since ESEA was passed. H.R. 5 threatens to thrust 
us back to a time when the right to quality education was merely an 
intangible promise for disadvantaged children. It ignores the promises 
at the heart of this civil rights law.
  We must take substantial steps towards fulfilling the promises made 
by ESEA. H.R. 5 ignores the promise to value every child by allowing 
States and school districts to redirect funds away from the schools and 
the children most in need. They call it portability. H.R. 5 ignores the 
promise that every child counts by using vague and undefined 
accountability measures and failing to provide Federal guardrails for 
student achievement.

                              {time}  1315

  H.R. 5 ignores the promise that every child deserves a quality 
education, and it does so by failing to address our excessive 
dependence on deeply problematic standardized tests. We need to move 
toward more balanced forms of assessment that effectively measure 
diverse kinds of success in teaching and learning.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spent decades working to understand how children 
learn, and I can tell you this--that this bill fails to meet the very 
promises that are essential for educating our children and that are at 
the heart of the ESEA. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote 
against this bill of unfulfilled promises.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), someone who really embodies something that I 
have seen in this Congress on both sides of the aisle since my becoming 
a Member, people who dedicate their lives to different fields. 
Congresswoman Foxx is a colleague and a member of the Rules Committee 
who has dedicated her life to education.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding and for 
his kind comments.
  Mr. Speaker, today's debate on education and the Student Success Act 
is a crucial one for our future.
  Over the last five decades, the Federal Government's role in 
education has increased dramatically. The Department of Education 
currently runs more than 80 K-12 education programs, many of which are 
duplicative or ineffective.
  As a school board member in North Carolina, I saw how the vast 
reporting requirements for these Federal programs tie the hands of 
State and local school education leaders.
  My colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and 
I have been working on the Student Success Act to make commonsense 
changes to update Federal law, addressing the concerns raised following 
No Child Left Behind.
  Our legislation is centered on four principles: reducing the Federal 
footprint in education, empowering parents, supporting effective 
teachers, and restoring local control.
  H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, will also streamline the Department 
of Education's bureaucracy by eliminating more than 65 duplicative and 
ineffective Federal education programs, cutting through the 
bureaucratic red tape that is stifling innovation in the classroom, 
granting States and school districts the authority to use Federal 
education funds as they believe will best meet the unique needs of 
their students.
  Additionally, this legislation will take definitive steps to limit 
the Secretary's authority by prohibiting him or her from coercing 
States into adopting academic standards like the Common Core.
  If we would like to reduce the Federal Government's role in 
education, we must act. In the absence of congressional action, 
President Obama and his Education Department have taken unprecedented 
steps to regulate education.
  Beginning in 2011, the Obama administration began offering States 
temporary waivers from No Child Left Behind's onerous burden in 
exchange for granting the Secretary of Education complete discretion to 
coerce States into enacting the President's preferred education 
reforms.
  The Student Success Act provides an important opportunity to stop 
President Obama's overreach into State and local education debates 
through his waiver scheme.
  Mr. Speaker, our children deserve better. It is time to acknowledge 
more Federal intrusion cannot address the challenges facing schools. 
That is the promise of the Student Success Act: a reduced Federal role, 
focused on restoring authority and control to parents, teachers, 
States, and communities on how our children are educated.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.

[[Page H4884]]

  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, on the 50th anniversary of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, now more than ever we must ensure that every 
kid has access to a great school. It shouldn't matter who your parents 
are, what ZIP code you live in, or how many zeros are at the end of 
your bank account.
  H.R. 5 breaks the promise made 50 years ago to help all kids get a 
good public education and to recognize the challenges faced by kids 
living in poverty.
  Republicans will have the opportunity to make their bad bill even 
worse by allowing an amendment to come to the floor today which 
essentially turns all of ESEA into a block grant, allowing States to 
use Federal resources for any educational purpose, meaning States can 
redirect Federal funds towards taxpayer-funded vouchers for private and 
religious schools.
  That has been a failed experiment in Wisconsin, and that strips money 
away from public schools and hurts kids everywhere. I urge a ``no'' 
vote on H.R. 5, a bad bill that could likely get even worse today.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen), a fellow freshman.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate before this floor today is who knows best how 
to educate our children.
  I rise today to speak about H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. This is 
legislation that I believe goes a long way in getting the Federal 
Government out of the way of our schools and teachers and putting 
education back in the right hands by restoring local control.
  As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I have 
spent several hours debating and marking up this legislation. I have 
also visited several schools in my district and have spoken with 
parents, teachers, and administrators about the challenges they are 
facing.
  What I heard across the board was that top-down regulations from 
Washington are burdening our teachers with seemingly endless compliance 
requirements.
  Our educators should have the ability to focus on the individual 
needs of their students and their classes. Instead, our current system 
is forcing them to spend time filling out paperwork and meeting this 
one-size-fits-all requirement.
  That is exactly why H.R. 5 is important legislation that I urge my 
colleagues to support today. This bill replaces the current 
accountability system that says Washington knows what is best for our 
students, and it replaces it with a system that gives States and school 
districts the responsibility for measuring the success of their 
schools. Through bottom-up reforms, it restores local control and gives 
our educators more freedom to innovate.
  I have personally seen in my district how students and communities 
benefit from local innovation in schools. We have one such example in 
my district that does not get $1 of Federal funding, and it takes 
children who are discarded by the public school system and makes 
successful students from this group. I am very proud of what this 
school has accomplished.
  H.R. 5 empowers parents, just like at this school, with more 
information to hold schools accountable for effective teaching, and it 
expands opportunities to send their children to a school that best 
meets their needs. It also gets rid of almost 70 unnecessary Federal 
programs and, instead, creates a block grant that provides money to the 
States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ALLEN. Under H.R. 5, States are protected from being coerced into 
adopting Common Core by the Department of Education, and they have the 
right to opt out of any program under the law.
  Mr. Speaker, all of these are significant and needed steps to put the 
responsibility of education back where it belongs, and that is with the 
States, local school districts, parents, and the educators, as they 
know what is best. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 60 years ago, in Brown vs. Board of Education, 
the Supreme Court talked about the value of education when it said 
that, these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be 
expected to succeed in life if denied the opportunity of an education. 
Such an opportunity where the State has undertaken to provide it is a 
right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
  The fact is that equal educational opportunities were not and still 
are not always available in low-income areas, basically, for two 
reasons. First, we fund education through the real estate tax, 
virtually guaranteeing that wealthy areas will have more resources; and 
just with the give and take in politics, you know that low-income areas 
will generally get the short end of the stick.
  In 1965, we enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to 
recognize the disparities in funding. It addresses ``the special 
educational needs of children of low-income families and the impact 
that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local 
educational agencies to support adequate educational programs.''
  While public education would remain fundamentally a local issue 
through ESEA, the government recognized that, without Federal oversight 
and support, districts would not address these inequities.
  In the last reauthorization, better known as No Child Left Behind, in 
addition to money, Congress required States to identify and address 
achievement gaps.
  Because of that work, the education of our children has been much 
improved, as high school dropout rates are at historic lows, as the 
long-term scores on the national tests have gone up, and as the 
achievement gaps for racial and ethnic minorities have actually been 
closing, but the gap between rich and poor has actually been going up.
  Mr. Speaker, with that background, the House has put forth its vision 
of the reauthorization of the ESEA, the Student Success Act. It 
violates the original purpose of ESEA, first, by reducing the funding, 
but also by changing the funding formula to take money from low-income 
areas and to give it to wealthy areas.
  For example, Los Angeles, with 70 percent poverty, would lose about a 
quarter of its funding while Beverly Hills, with virtually no poverty, 
would pick up about 30 percent in additional funding under that new 
formula.
  This rule enables amendments that, if adopted in the bill, will 
significantly reduce the ability of States to determine academic 
achievement gaps.
  Now, I recognize that everybody is mad at having to take tests, and 
we address that in the bill by auditing the number of tests, making 
sure that there are as few as possible and that they are used for 
purposes which are validated.
  The bill significantly scales back the ability of States to identify 
achievement gaps and then scales back their requirement to do anything 
about it.
  These are the major flaws in H.R. 5: less funding, less ability to 
determine the achievement gaps, and then no requirement to do anything 
about it.
  There are other problems with the bill, for example, block granting 
programs that will end up underfunding bilingual education, afterschool 
programs, STEM, arts education, and others. These vital programs will 
certainly do worse.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, we should both defeat the rule. And 
if the rule passes, we should defeat the bill.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), another freshman 
colleague.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and 
of the underlying bill.
  We have a chance today to help put our K-12 education system back on 
track, helping students all across this country.
  Over the past 6 months, I have traveled in my district to listen to 
the concerns of teachers, administrators, parents, and students.
  One of the most common themes I hear is that there is too much 
confusion coming from Washington and that

[[Page H4885]]

those who know what is best--our educators and parents--are not getting 
a say in our children's futures.
  Local school districts understand the unique needs of their students 
far better than any bureaucrat in Washington ever will.
  From No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and waivers, the 
Department of Education has sent so many mixed signals that it is 
impossible for teachers and administrators to focus on what is needed 
most, flexibility to help students learn and succeed. This is why I am 
a strong supporter of H.R. 5.
  I commend Chairman John Kline and Subcommittee Chairman Todd Rokita 
for putting forward legislation that ensures that students and schools 
are put first. Accountability will now be placed where it should have 
been all along, with States and local school districts.
  Labeling half of all schools in the United States as failing has 
caused the Department of Education to become far too overreaching in 
defining accountability as they continue to shift the metrics on what 
is considered satisfactory.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 empowers parents and students by giving them 
access to information about local schools in order to hold them 
accountable.
  In addition, this bill eliminates 65 duplicative and underperforming 
programs and consolidates the money into a new grant program for local 
school districts. This money can be spent by districts to meet their 
unique needs.
  Funding for title I remains robust in the bill, and students and 
parents retain the ability to make the best educational decisions for 
them by providing access to charter schools and magnet schools.

                              {time}  1330

  Particularly important for my constituents in New York is language in 
H.R. 5 that prevents the Secretary of Education from forcing States to 
implement Common Core.
  I urge all Members to vote ``aye'' on the rule and to support the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, here we go again, back to the 
same bill we debated earlier this year that continues to embrace the 
idea that less Federal oversight over Federal dollars is what we need 
to transform K-12 education.
  The opposition seems to believe that removing Federal standards would 
help local leaders make tough decisions. That is absolutely wrong. It 
actually makes it harder.
  For 9 years, I served on a school board in a large urban school 
district, and I remember agonizing over the decision to move money from 
one high-needs school to another. In the end, it was the law and 
safeguards around title I that helped direct us to make sure the money 
went to the students that required the greatest assistance. This 
changes that.
  Mr. Speaker, what we need is a Federal law that gives guidance to 
local school board members that must deal with thousands of competing 
interests every single day and which enables local leaders ultimately 
to make the right decision.
  Mr. Speaker, today represents a missed opportunity. We need a 21st 
century education system that makes investment in all our Nation's 
children. That and only that will help our Nation compete in the global 
economy. Today's reauthorization of ESEA not only misses the mark, but 
actually moves us in the wrong direction.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, a ``no'' vote on final passage and 
also on the Salmon amendment.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership, the gentleman from 
Washington, and the members of the Committee on Rules for bringing this 
rule to the floor. I think it is a good rule. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
it and the underlying bill, which I am hopeful and pleased we are going 
to get to today.
  In response to some of the last speakers, first of all, let me 
associate myself with the remarks of Ms. Stefanik from New York. She is 
right on. This is exactly the kind of policy and law that we need in 
this country at this particular time because it puts the trust and the 
personal responsibility back in the hands of the people where it 
belongs; and that is our parents, our teachers, our school principals, 
and superintendents.
  How arrogant for anyone to think that we here in Washington know 
better how to raise our children than those children's parents, working 
hand in hand, side by side, with that child's teacher and school 
leaders.
  This bill is needed. It is right on point. It is needed for the 21st 
century, and I want to address some of the misinformation that might be 
out there.
  First of all, I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the civil 
rights protections, which I agree with my friend, the ranking member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, are very, very 
important--critical. That is all kept here. That language remains 
because it is essential.
  Secondly, we mandate disaggregated data so that we can see from a 
holistic, collective standpoint how our children of whatever ethnic 
background are doing. That is very important. That is kept. Title I is 
there. There is some more portability, but we think that is a good 
thing because choice in this subject is a good thing.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this isn't about money. 
Federal spending in education has gone up 300 percent since the Federal 
Government got involved in this business, and test results are flat. It 
is not about money. It is about leadership.
  The best way to empower leaders is to give them the tools that they 
need so that they can help our children grow and compete in the 21st 
century world and win. That is exactly what the Student Success Act 
does. It trusts teachers and parents over Washington bureaucrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for full support from this House for the rule and 
for the underlying legislation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule 
which would allow for consideration of H.R. 5, a harmful bill that 
abandons our commitment to ensuring all children in my home State of 
Arizona and across the country are afforded quality education that 
prepares them for success.
  We can all agree that every child deserves a fair shot by giving them 
and their teachers the tools they need; but the reality is millions of 
kids face additional barriers that require targeted resources. 
Unfortunately, this bill turns its back on these kids by block granting 
all funding for English language learners, migrant students, and at-
risk students and lets the funding be spent elsewhere.
  What is more, it eliminates requirements that schools improve the 
education of English language learners each year. By removing 
accountability for the achievement and learning gains of Latinos and 
English language learners, this bill ignores the real needs of kids and 
families across our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, a Latino child in Phoenix deserves every resource he or 
she needs to succeed. That is why I strongly support the Democratic 
substitute amendment to H.R. 5 offered by my colleague Congressman 
Scott. This alternative recognizes the needs of Latino students and 
ensures proper oversight that we know is necessary.
  I urge all my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5 and its dangerous 
provisions for Latino students.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, when he first signed into law the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson 
greatly advanced both education and civil rights.
  Now, here, 50 years later, the need for Federal support for our 
schools remains very real, but Republicans celebrate the anniversary by 
effectively repealing the civil rights portion, Title I, of this act.
  In February, Republicans began consideration of this bill and then 
suspended it because so many of their Members did not think it was 
extreme

[[Page H4886]]

enough in cutting aid to our schools. Since then, the Senate has come 
together in a bipartisan, though lacking, approach, but a better 
approach that recognizes the need for civil rights and public 
education.
  Just as it did previously on immigration reform, the House has 
rejected that bipartisan approach and has jumped off the right end with 
a more extreme antieducation attitude.
  In a few weeks, bright-faced young schoolchildren will put on their 
backpacks and head off to school. As their number increases, this bill 
actually cuts the purchasing power available to our schools to meet 
those growing needs.
  Most importantly, Republicans would encourage the States to divert 
aid from the schools with the greatest need and to actually use Federal 
dollars to replace what the States are already spending on education.
  Not only does the bill shortchange our schools and our students, it 
also eliminates dedicated funding for important programs like STEM--
science, technology, engineering, and math education. These STEM skills 
are driving innovation.
  It is silent on support for our youngest Americans, as schools across 
the country recognize that brain research supports having pre-K through 
12 education. We need not only accountability but funding. This bill 
should be rejected. We cannot shut the door on these students.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the good gentleman 
from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, passage of this measure will restore 
responsible management to our forests after decades of Federal neglect. 
My district includes seven national forests which have suffered from 
increasingly devastating forest fires caused by overgrown, mismanaged 
forests and has been economically hobbled by restrictions on forest 
management.
  Last year, in just one of my counties, just three forest fires burned 
200,000 acres. Our rural communities, public lands, and environment are 
being destroyed by this neglect.
  This measure will return active management to our forests by 
increasing flexibility; cutting red tape; and, most importantly, acting 
to manage forests before fires occur, not afterwards. Streamlining the 
review process means that forest management can occur when it is 
actually needed to address dangerous conditions, not after years of 
legal roadblocks.
  Allowing categorical exclusions for postfire salvage and 
rehabilitation hastens forest recovery and prevents fuel buildup that 
can contribute to the next future fire. Expanding local involvement in 
forest management will improve the data available for planning and 
respect local priorities.
  In light of Forest Service surveys finding that over 12 million 
Sierra Nevada trees have died in the last year, we cannot afford to 
wait another year.
  Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we act today before our forests 
have passed beyond any point where they can be restored to good forest 
health.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire how much time remains on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Allen). The gentleman from Colorado has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Instead of engaging in partisan fights on so important an issue that, 
in essence, is about our future as a Nation and future generations, we 
should find common ground. Education is a civil right. All students 
deserve the opportunity of a world class, high-quality education.
  This very week, the Senate is discussing their own version of ESEA 
reauthorization. Now, while nothing is perfect, their bill reflects the 
bipartisan spirit that would improve this bill if it was allowed in 
this body.
  Members of the Tri-Caucus and leaders of the New Democrat Coalition 
have sent letters to the chairman and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions with a number 
of suggestions for their bill, but at least there is a bipartisan 
attempt to help prepare our Nation's kids for our future.
  ESEA is one of the most significant pieces of legislation this body 
will consider. It is a bill about our future. Members of this body are 
eager to improve this bill and pass a reauthorized version to finally 
replace No Child Left Behind.
  No child should have to attend a failing school, and ZIP Code and 
race should never determine the quality of an education that a child 
receives. I think that is something, hopefully, we can agree on as a 
core principle.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us retreats from our promise to our 
Nation's students. H.R. 5 would bring us back to a time with no 
accountability standards, where students with disabilities are swept 
under the rug.
  It would divert money from the schools and kids that need it the 
most; and with the Salmon amendment, it would sweep minority students, 
students with disabilities, new immigrant students, and low-income 
students under the rug, as they were in the past. Now that they have 
emerged, we must ensure that they meet all the learning needs for all 
students.
  Mr. Speaker, we are shortchanging our Nation's kids by not being 
thoughtful and deliberate with this issue. It is rare that a bill would 
unite the business community, teachers, school boards, and many others 
in opposition, but H.R. 5 does this.
  The bill's sponsors had 133 days to give students and our country a 
bill that they deserve.

                              {time}  1345

  It is a shame that they didn't take better advantage of that 
opportunity.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule; ``no'' on the 
bill; ``no'' on the Salmon amendment; and ``yes'' on the Democratic 
substitute, which was thoughtfully put together to ensure that 
America's next generation is prepared to carry on our legacy of global 
leadership and to put food on their tables as aspiring members of our 
great country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As you can tell, due to the number of colleagues from both sides of 
the aisle speaking today, these are critically important issues we are 
considering, important to the economic well-being of our country, as 
well as to the health of our forest lands and the safety of rural 
communities.
  Reforming our education system and the way we combat wildfires and 
manage our forests is of the highest priority, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this rule, as well as both of the underlying bills.
  This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2647, the Resilient 
Federal Forests Act of 2015, a bipartisan, comprehensive bill aimed at 
expediting and improving forest management activities in Federal 
forests.
  This critical piece of legislation would address the disastrous 
consequences of catastrophic wildfire and would return resilience to 
our overgrown, fire-prone forests by dramatically improving the health 
of our Federal forests and rangelands.
  My district, as well as many other areas around the country, continue 
to face the threat of catastrophic wildfire, which is made worse by the 
continuing drought conditions and the poor management and maintenance 
of forests on our Federal lands.
  We must begin to take steps to prevent and address these fires, which 
this bill does by reforming the way we prepare, respond to, and fund 
wildfire response and mitigation efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue on this current path, where we limp 
from one devastating fire to the next, unable to break the cycle of 
destructive fire seasons due to ineffective funding mechanisms, 
insufficient forest maintenance, and a burdensome Federal permitting 
and review process.
  This bill addresses these shortcomings by tackling the problem of 
fire borrowing, simplifying environmental process requirements, 
reducing project planning times, and lowering the cost of implementing 
forest management projects, all while ensuring robust environmental 
protections.
  Mr. Speaker, because of the reforms and streamlined authorities in 
this bill, there will be an increase in acres of treated land, which 
will come at no additional cost to our taxpayers. This legislation is 
essential and desperately needed to change the outdated, unsustainable, 
and ultimately dangerous system of forest management on Federal lands.

[[Page H4887]]

  This rule also provides for further consideration of H.R. 5, the 
Student Success Act, a reform of our Nation's education system which 
reduces the Federal Government's footprint in State and local issues 
and restores control over education back to those on the ground who are 
best qualified to make the decisions affecting their students, parents, 
teachers, and communities.
  Mr. Speaker, a well-educated workforce is imperative to the health 
and vitality of both our Nation's children and our economy. The Student 
Success Act empowers parents, local communities, and State governments 
to lead the way in fixing America's broken educational system.
  H.R. 5 will benefit students, parents, teachers, and school 
administrators by returning responsibility for student achievement to 
the States and local communities, while maintaining high standards and 
expectations for our Nation's students, teachers, and schools.
  This is a good, straightforward rule, Mr. Speaker, allowing for 
consideration of two critical pieces of legislation that will help 
protect our rural communities, provide much-needed reforms to our 
education system, and ensure that we are prepared to respond to the 
devastating and catastrophic wildfires that have plagued many areas of 
our country. I support the rule's adoption, and I urge my colleagues 
also to support both the rule and the underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 185, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 392]

                               YEAS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--185

     Adams
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Aguilar
     Black
     Culberson
     Deutch
     Lofgren
     Miller (FL)

                              {time}  1418

  Messrs. DOYLE, SIRES, and HIMES changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. FITZPATRICK, FRELINGHUYSEN, DUFFY, STEFANIK, MULLIN, YOHO, 
BRIDENSTINE, TIBERI, YOUNG of Alaska, ROGERS of Alabama, and TIPTON 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 8, 2015, on page H4887, the following appeared: MULLIN, 
YOHO, BRIDENSTINE, TIBERI, YOUNG of Arkansas, ROGERS of Alabama,
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: MULLIN, YOHO, 
BRIDENSTINE, TIBERI, YOUNG of Alaska, ROGERS of Alabama,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________