[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.
____________________