[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 174 (Wednesday, December 2, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8875-H8884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1245
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY
SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1177, STUDENT SUCCESS ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 542 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 542
Resolved, That 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 further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 8) to modernize energy
infrastructure, build a 21st century energy and manufacturing
workforce, bolster America's energy security and diplomacy,
and promote energy efficiency and government accountability,
and for other purposes. No further general debate shall be in
order. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce 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 114-36. 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 the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. 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
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.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill
(S. 1177) to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves.
All points of order against the conference report and against
its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2)
one motion to recommit if applicable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). The gentleman from
Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to 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.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. 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 Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 542 provides for a rule to
continue consideration of the comprehensive energy legislation on which
the House began its work yesterday.
The rule makes in order 38 amendments to be considered on the House
floor, 22 of which are sponsored by Democratic Members of the House, 12
of which are sponsored by Republicans, and 4 of which were submitted as
bipartisan amendments.
Further, the minority will be afforded the standard motion to
recommit--a final opportunity to amend the bill prior to its passage.
H. Res. 542 further provides for a rule to consider the conference
report to S. 1177, the Student Success Act, which will move the
country's education system beyond No Child Left Behind and return the
responsibility of educating our children to local and State
authorities, where it appropriately belongs.
As with all conference reports brought before the House, the rule
provides that debate on the measure will be conducted under the
standing rules of the House and will further provide for a motion to
recommit, allowing the minority yet another opportunity to amend the
legislation before its final passage.
The amendments that the Rules Committee made in order allow the House
to weigh in on a number of important issues within the sphere of energy
policy, from crude oil exports, to the Federal Government's policy on
fossil fuel usage, to siting and regulatory reforms at the Department
of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
I do wish to highlight an amendment that unfortunately was not made
in order, one that I submitted to the Rules Committee, as well, during
the markup of H.R. 8 in Energy and Commerce.
It has become clear to me, having worked on the Energy and Commerce
Committee over the past 10 years, that the authority given to the
Department of Energy to regulate and mandate efficiency standards in
consumer products was both initially misguided and ultimately has
proven to be cumbersome and unworkable.
Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong believer in energy
efficiency. However, government-mandated efficiency standards have
proven to be the wrong approach.
For this reason, I submitted an amendment to repeal the Federal
energy conservation standards, which dictate how energy efficient
consumer products must be before they can be sold in the United States.
These mandates cover products from light bulbs--and, on this, we have
successfully blocked it due to overwhelming public outrage--to ceiling
fans, to air conditioners, to heaters, to furnaces. The list goes on
and on.
The Federal Government should not be setting these standards.
Companies and, more importantly, their customers should be the driving
force in this decision. This is about letting the free market drive
innovation and technological advances. The government should trust the
people to make the right decisions when it comes to the products that
they buy.
When the government sets the efficiency standard for a product, that
often becomes the ceiling. When the market drives the standard, there
is no limit to how fast and how aggressive manufacturers will
ultimately be when consumers demand more efficient and better products.
Mr. Speaker, government standards have proven to be unworkable. Every
single time the Department of Energy proposes to set a new efficiency
standard for any product, manufacturers run to their Members of
Congress, asking us to sign letters to the Department of Energy to
implore them not to set unworkable standards. It is a predictable
occurrence for every rule.
Even in H.R. 8, we are conceding that the Department of Energy is
moving in the wrong direction with furnace standards, and Congress has
to step in and mitigate. In fact, Congress should be getting out of the
way of the relationship between companies and their customers.
How many times during the appropriations process are we asked to vote
on amendments blocking the Department of Energy from regulating
consumer products because the Federal Government does not understand
how to run a business? Instead of that approach, we should be removing
the Department of Energy's authority altogether.
The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution was meant as a
limitation on Federal power. The Framers intended that clause to be
used to ensure that commerce could flow freely among the several
States. It was never intended to allow the Federal Government to
micromanage everyday consumer products.
If the clause were truly meant to be that expansive, then the 10th
Amendment would be meaningless. There would be no authority left to
reserve to the States. This view of the Commerce Clause was reaffirmed
most recently by
[[Page H8876]]
the Supreme Court in the National Federation of Independent Business v.
Sebelius.
The Commerce Clause does not and cannot extend so far as to allow the
Federal Government to regulate products that do not pose a risk to
health or safety. There is a place for the FDA to regulate safe food
and drugs and for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
regulate the safety of cars on the roads, but to give the Federal
Government the authority to regulate how efficient a product should be
really seems to cross a constitutional line.
Congress has already stepped in to block the Department of Energy
from setting efficiency standards for light bulbs--not because Congress
gained wisdom. It was because the American people understood clearly
that this was government overreach at its worst, and they demanded it
be fixed.
But the same can and should be said about every consumer product that
the Department of Energy has been given the authority to regulate in
the efficiency space. From light bulbs, to furnaces, to air
conditioners, to ceiling fans, the Department of Energy should not be
telling manufacturers how to make their products.
I also want to say one thing about the amendment to H.R. 8 that was
submitted by the Representative from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), which was
also, unfortunately, not made in order.
This amendment was based, in part, on a series of GAO studies that I
and Senator Markey had commissioned to study the Department of Energy's
management of uranium issues and its impact on the domestic uranium
mining industry.
It is a critical issue for those of us from Western States. And it is
my hope, as this body continues to work to protect that industry from
further legally suspect actions by the Department of Energy, that Mrs.
Lummis' wishes will be achieved.
The education conference report, known as the Every Student Succeeds
Act, is a bipartisan compromise to reauthorize and reform our education
system.
For the past 13 years, our students and our schools have been
struggling to meet the rigorous and often unrealistic demands of No
Child Left Behind.
No Child Left Behind attempted to improve school accountability by
conditioning increased funding on annual testing requirements and pass
rates. One hundred percent of students were supposed to be proficient
by 2014, with failing schools being required to restructure under
Federal guidelines.
A vote against the Every Student Succeeds Act today is a vote to keep
No Child Left Behind in place, to keep the onerous average yearly
progress standards in place, and to keep the high-stakes testing in
place that so many of our constituents deplore.
This compromise, which was worked out in committee, is a vast
improvement. It is not a perfect bill by any stretch, but it is a vast
improvement. And, really, for the first time, it moves control back
into the hands of States and local districts, where it belongs.
It eliminates the waiver process by repealing the adequate yearly
progress Federal accountability system. For years, school boards in my
district have been requesting relief from having to obtain waivers from
the Department of Education.
This bill will allow local districts to set their own testing
requirements and standards to determine whether a student or a school
is struggling as well as how to improve.
Common Core incentives are eliminated. Let me repeat that. Common
Core incentives are eliminated.
The Federal Government created the Federal education regulations and
mandated their adoption by withholding funds from schools. This
intervention is another example of the Federal Government's prescribing
its best practices over those schools and teachers who, every day, get
up and go to work to do their best. They know their students. They know
how best to teach them. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, this
stops.
This bill also provides States with new funding flexibility by
allowing States to determine how to spend their Federal dollars--on
average, 7 percent per year. In my State, this is more than $225
million annually that the State will be able to allocate in the most
effective and the most efficient way possible.
This bill is a 4-year authorization. That is an important point.
Regardless of how you feel about the current administration, it will
not be the current administration in 4 years' time. That will allow the
next administration, whoever he or she may be, the opportunity to
better evaluate education programs and, my hope is, to continue to
reduce the Federal role for our students, schools, and teachers in
Texas and throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am glad the gentleman got to education. We heard 9 or 10 minutes
about this corporate welfare energy bill, which is not going anywhere,
and it is the reason that I don't think there will be any Democrats
supporting this rule. But, yes, in this rule is also a wonderful
education bill that we are very excited about, and I think we have many
Democrats who will want to tell you about it here today. It is exciting
to reach this point.
I share the frustration of teachers, of parents, of students across
the country with No Child Left Behind. I was on the State Board of
Education in Colorado from 2001 to 2007 when we implemented No Child
Left Behind. We saw many of the flaws at that time.
We knew the fallacy of the formula for adequate yearly progress, and
it was set up in such a way that all schools would eventually fail. We
saw the rigid structure that could even inhibit State and district
innovation.
{time} 1300
I am proud to say today that the bill under this rule is a major step
forward. For those who are thinking of opposing it, realize that, in
opposing it, you are ensuring that No Child Left Behind will continue
exactly as it is.
There is never a perfect alternative. I am sure, if each of us had
the opportunity to write our own education bill, we would have 435
different bills.
What we have before us is a good, realistic compromise that can
replace No Child Left Behind with a new Federal education law. It is
something that is long overdue for the kids of this country, something
that will be a boost in morale to teachers and educators in this
country, and something that will encourage innovation at the State and
district level. I will talk about some of those provisions that do just
that.
Just a few weeks ago I met with some teachers and students at Rocky
Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado. They expressed their
frustration with what has become everyday challenges in K-12 schools
and how detached our No Child Left Behind law from 15 years ago is with
the realities of education today.
Teachers are spending less time teaching and more time administering
high-stakes test or teaching of the test. Students are spending less
time learning. As a result, schools have less time to focus on teaching
real skills that students need to be ready for college or to be ready
for careers in technical education after high school.
Unfortunately, schools across my district and the country have been
experiencing the same frustrations as the teachers and students at
Rocky Mountain High who I met with a couple weeks ago.
These frustrations are in many ways the result of the outdated
education law, No Child Left Behind, which passed in 2001, which was
well intentioned, but imposed a one-size-fits-all accountability
system, a flawed one at that, on a diverse set of States and districts
across our country.
That is why I am so excited to be here on the floor of the House with
the opportunity to speak about the new conference report, the new
bipartisan, bicameral ESEA Reauthorization, the Every Student Succeeds
Act, which passed 39-1 in our conference committee.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me and
the other conferees in replacing No Child Left Behind with Every
Student Succeeds Act.
The Every Student Succeeds Act is the result of years of work by both
Chambers. Former Ranking Member and former Chair George Miller, former
Ranking Member and Chair Buck McKeon, current Chair Mr. Kline, and
[[Page H8877]]
Mr. Scott have worked tirelessly, along with their staffs, over years
to be able to put together something that both Democrats and
Republicans can feel good about. Because guess what. We both care about
kids. We both care about education. It is not a partisan issue.
Now, we might have our differences about how to improve our schools.
Let's put all those good ideas on the table. And they were. And they
were voiced. We were able to build and improve deeply upon the highly
flawed first version of this bill that the House passed, which would
have taken Federal dollars away from the poorest schools and given it
to wealthier schools.
The House-passed bill would have completely failed students with
disabilities by allowing unlimited students to have no accountability
by classifying them as students with disabilities for alternative
assessments, sweeping under the rug the tremendous amount of progress
that students with disabilities have made since No Child Left Behind.
The first version of the bill didn't establish any accountability for
graduation or proficiency rates or any parameters for interventions to
ensure that we could improve struggling schools.
Now, when the Every Student Succeeds Act finally passed the House, it
barely passed. It passed in a purely partisan manner. No Democrats
supported the bill, and many Republicans didn't support the bill.
Now, the silver lining of that is that it allowed the process to move
forward. I am proud to say, after months of hard work by the staff and
the chair and ranking member, the conference committee has succeeded in
reporting out a bill that I believe is better than the Senate bill,
better than the House bill, and certainly better than No Child Left
Behind.
When the conferees met, several Members offered thoughtful amendments
that built upon and improved the conference framework even more. For
example, Mr. Messer offered an amendment that would allow funds to be
used to educate teachers about best practices for student data privacy.
I offered a successful amendment that increases dual and concurrent
enrollment opportunities for English language learners, something near
and dear to my heart as the founder of the New America School charter
school network.
The conference committee took the framework and turned it into a
robust bill that replaces No Child Left Behind with a system that works
better for students, for educators, for families, and for schools.
When ESEA was first passed in 1965, first and foremost, it was seen
properly as a critical piece of civil rights legislation. For the first
time, the Federal Government was making a commitment that every child,
regardless of race, background, or ZIP Code, deserved a great education
to prepare them for success.
Any reauthorization of ESEA needs to uphold that same commitment to
civil rights that was established in 1965. While the Every Student
Succeeds Act isn't perfect, I believe that it upholds that commitment
to civil rights that is such an important role for the Federal
Government to play.
Most importantly, the Every Student Succeeds Act includes strong
accountability provisions that ensure that underimproving schools are
identified and improved.
Now, title I in Every Student Succeeds Act has come a long way from
the original House bill. The number of Members in the House, including
those in the new Democratic coalition and the Tri-Caucus, demanded
stronger accountability provisions in the conference report. I am very
happy to see that the conference report has delivered.
Specifically, the Every Student Succeeds Act maintains annual
statewide assessments, which gives States, districts, teachers, and
parents valuable information about how students are performing and the
tools they need to improve student performance. This data will be
broken down by subgroup, by race, by socioeconomic status, to ensure
that no students are swept under the rug.
This bill includes a clear framework for identifying consistently
low-performing schools and provides resources and ensures that States
intervene to improve them. It fully maintains our promise to parents of
students with disabilities, the promise that schools will be
accountable to ensure that their child is learning and that the unique
learning needs of their children are met.
To be clear, these requirements are not the same top-down, one-size-
fits-all accountability provisions of No Child Left Behind. The one-
size-fits-all formula of adequate yearly progress is rightfully gone.
The accountability provisions in Every Student Succeeds Act creates a
framework for States as they create their own meaningful accountability
plans.
This means that States can be flexible and innovative to create
specific policies that work for them. It is a challenge to States to
rise to the occasion in meeting the learning needs of all students
while maintaining those Federal rails to ensure that no child is left
out.
This bill provides additional flexibility around testing by allowing
high-quality, Federally recognized tests to also meet the annual
testing requirements in high school. In my district, high schoolers
take the Colorado State test, the ACT, and, if necessary, AP or IB
exams. That is a lot of testing in the final years of high school.
This new flexibility would mean that a pending application that
Colorado has for the ACT to stand in place of the Colorado State test
would be specifically allowed in statute under this bill, and I
couldn't be more proud of that provision.
This bill also maintains strong support for high-quality charter
schools, something that I have made a hallmark of my time here in
Congress and have been a coauthor of bills that have passed this body
overwhelmingly. That charter school language is reflected in this bill.
The language would improve charter school access and service for all
students, give new and innovative charter schools those tools they need
to meet their goal of serving at-risk and diverse students that ensure
that our limited Federal investment supports the replication and
expansion of high-quality, innovative charter schools.
Before I came to Congress, I founded two public charter school
networks. I know the freedom to innovate and the flexibility to pursue
a unique mission within public education can help charter schools
succeed at the highest levels.
This bill also contains a commitment to education technology and
innovation. The Investing in Innovation program has also been one of my
top priorities in this bill.
In Colorado, the St. Vrain Valley School District, which I represent
a good portion of, received a $3.6 million innovation grant to expand
programs for at-risk kids in seven schools.
Because of that grant, St. Vrain was able to extend the school year
at four elementary schools that serve at-risk kids, target math
students at risk of failing at two middle schools that implement the
STEM Academy at Skyline High School. I couldn't be more proud of this
provision.
Now, this rule also has a corporate welfare giveaway to the oil and
gas industry. Thankfully, they are two separate votes. So my colleagues
can vote against corporate welfare for the oil and gas industry, one of
the most profitable industries on the face of the planet, and vote for
kids.
I do encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule, which has the
oil and gas corporate welfare bill. If it simply was a straight-up vote
on ESEA, I think my Democratic colleagues would join me in supporting
the rule. Unfortunately, it is not.
They stuck another bill in there that is an enormous multibillion-
dollar giveaway to the most profitable industry on the face of the
planet, trying to preserve the fossil fuel industry rather than find a
pathway forward to transition toward a lower carbon emission future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a valuable senior member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Dr. Burgess, for
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, as a child, my family's home didn't have electricity or
running
[[Page H8878]]
water. My parents, while dedicated and hardworking, were poor, with
little formal education.
Fortunately, I was pushed by the right people, teachers and
administrators, who wouldn't let me settle for less than my best. In
the mountains of North Carolina, I learned firsthand the power of
education and its vital role in the success of individual Americans.
Unfortunately, today's K-12 education system is failing our students.
Decades of Washington's counterproductive mandates and the No Child
Left Behind law have resulted in stagnant student achievement,
disappointing graduation rates, and high school graduates entering
college and the workforce without the knowledge and resources they need
to succeed.
Parents and education leaders have lost much of their decisionmaking
authority to Washington bureaucrats, and the Secretary of Education has
bullied States into adopting the Obama administration's pet policies.
The rule we are debating now would provide for consideration of a
conference committee agreement, the Every Student Succeeds Act,
reauthorizing and reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
that would allow Congress finally to replace the No Child Left Behind.
As a grandmother, educator, and former school board member, I know
students are best served when teachers, parents, and administrators are
the driving force behind improving education. This agreement does just
that by reducing the Federal footprint in the Nation's classrooms and
restoring control to the people who know their students best.
The compromise Every Student Succeeds Act gets Washington out of the
business of running schools. It protects State and local autonomy by
prohibiting the Secretary of Education from coercing States into
adopting Common Core or punishing them for abandoning it.
It also would place unprecedented restrictions on the authority of
the Secretary of Education, preventing the Secretary from imposing new
requirements on States and school districts through executive fiat, as
President Obama's Department of Education has done repeatedly over the
past 3 years.
The proposal eliminates the burdensome one-size-fits-all
accountability system that has done more to tie up States and school
districts in red tape than to support local efforts to educate
children. It also reduces the size of the Federal education bureaucracy
by eliminating ineffective and duplicative Federal programs and
requiring the Secretary of Education to reduce the Department's
workforce accordingly.
If Congress were to fail to act, States would be forced to choose
between the fundamentally flawed policies of No Child Left Behind,
which double down on Federal programs, mandates, and spending, and the
Obama administration's controversial temporary conditional waiver
scheme, which has imposed the administration's preferred policies and
heightened the level of uncertainty shared by States and school
districts. America's students deserve better.
That is why I am so pleased today's agreement gives States a better
chance to succeed by getting Washington out of their way. Our work has
been validated by The Wall Street Journal, which stated that the bill
would represent the largest evolution of Federal control to the States
in a quarter century. It is far better than the status quo that would
continue if nothing passes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. By reversing No Child Left Behind, one-size-fits-all
micromanagement of classrooms, Congress is giving parents, teachers,
and local education leaders the tools they need to repair a broken
education system and help all children reach their potential. It is
time to get Washington out of the way.
I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
conference committee agreement, the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding
and for all of the work that he has put in on an important and
necessary advancement in our education system.
As he mentioned, the rule we are debating today also incorporates a
rule for an energy bill that I wanted to address today because nowhere
is the need for a comprehensive energy policy more critical than in my
home State of Massachusetts and the entire region of New England.
With recent announced closures of two plants in our region, one coal
and one nuclear, we are facing the loss of over 2,000 megawatts of an
already antiquated, already overtaxed electric grid. That loss of
capacity is already causing the bills of our consumers to skyrocket
through a quadrupling of our capacity rates, from $1 billion to over $4
billion.
Those closures and subsequent rate increases underscore our need for
a roadmap that puts us on a path toward renewable energy while
balancing the reliability and affordability.
{time} 1315
The bill before us today does exactly the opposite. It reverses
course and renews our investment in outdated energy resources while
putting up roadblocks that will halt the innovation our energy
infrastructure so desperately needs.
In particular, I am very concerned with section 1110 of the bill,
which would require regional grid operators to conduct a reliability
analysis each time a rate change is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
Unfortunately, reliability comes at a cost, and the analysis required
by section 1110 fails to even consider its impact on ratepayers. It
ignores the concerns that I hear across my district every single day.
Rate increases mean families can't save, businesses can't grow, local
towns can't plan for the future.
That is why I introduced an amendment which would simply add ``at the
lowest possible cost'' to the reliability analysis in section 1110.
Unfortunately, it was not made in order. It was a simple amendment that
would have given much-needed direction and flexibility to each regional
operator to determine what its reliability needs are and how much it is
going to cost local ratepayers.
The reliability analysis is a clear benefit to fuel types that can be
stored and ignores the realities and benefits of other sources of
energy, including renewables. The criteria required in this analysis
fails to consider regional disparities, such as natural gas resources,
local policies, and infrastructure.
If the majority is going to insist on a reliability analysis, at the
very least we should consider the impact the analysis would have on
energy costs to our constituents.
To say I am disappointed about what this bill has become would be a
tremendous understatement. I hope today's vote will send a signal to
the majority that this version does not have a viable pathway forward
and that our Caucus remains committed to working with them on a bill
that does.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
Mr. BYRNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Alabama State school board,
former chancellor of postsecondary education for the State of Alabama,
and as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am
proud to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
For too long, our Nation's education system has failed under a heavy,
top-down system of mandates and requirements set by Washington
bureaucrats and special interest groups.
The Every Student Succeeds Act changes that by getting Washington out
of the way and empowering our local teachers, principals, and
administrators. This legislation achieves these goals by reducing the
Federal Government's role in K-12 education and restoring control over
education back to the States and local school districts, where it
belongs.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board calls this legislation the
largest devolution of Federal control to the States in a quarter-
century. National
[[Page H8879]]
Journal notes that the bill marks a rollback of Federal power, while
Politico points out that the bill cuts down on the number of education
programs.
I hear concerns often from my constituents in southwest Alabama about
the Common Core standards. Well, this bill expressly prohibits the
Secretary of Education from influencing or coercing States into
adopting Common Core. This bill makes clear that it is solely a State's
responsibility to set academic standards and pick assessments.
These restrictions on the Federal Secretary of Education are
unprecedented and will end the Secretary's ability to influence
education policy through executive fiat and conditional waivers.
Some may wonder what the alternative is to this legislation, so let
me tell you.
Without this bill, we will continue to allow the Obama administration
and the Federal Government to dictate education policy to the States.
Without this bill, the Secretary of Education will continue to use
Federal grants and money to coerce States into adopting certain
academic standards, like Common Core.
Without this bill, the Federal Department of Education will continue
to operate more than 80 programs which are ineffective, duplicative,
and unnecessary.
Without this bill, teachers will continue to have their hands tied by
policies and assessments put forward by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
Washington has no business telling our States and local school
districts how to best run their schools. So let's pass the Every
Student Succeeds Act. Let's get Washington out of the way, and let's
empower our local teachers, parents, and students.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the Every
Student Succeeds Act.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the
ranking member's intellect and integrity, as well as the chairman, in
working through this rule.
But it is simply disgraceful that while the President of the United
States, our President, was in Paris this week to unite the world
against the growing threat of climate change, this House chose to take
up this particular legislation that would undermine the transition to
cleaner power sources.
These irresponsible bills put the American people at risk by exposing
them to the dangers of carbon pollution, further exacerbating the
negative impacts of climate change and putting our natural resources in
jeopardy.
While some of my friends choose to deny solid scientific evidence,
more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies are in agreement:
Climate change is real, and humans are largely responsible by releasing
large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the
atmosphere from burning fossil fuels to produce energy.
But this is the most embarrassing part for our country: that this
House is ignoring the scientific and national security community, which
has long recognized the national security threat climate change poses
for future generations.
The longer term consequences of failing to act to address climate
change may add further instability in regions that are already
teetering on the edge of crisis. This could impair future access to
food and water, damage infrastructure or interrupt commercial activity,
and increase competition and tension between countries vying for
limited resources.
Now, as this body chooses to ignore our military leaders, we are
faced with a choice. We can reject the continued calls to pull fossil
fuels from the ground, or we can put our heads in the sand and pretend
everything is fine, hunky-dory.
While I may not be a scientist or a military expert, I don't think it
is difficult to walk and chew gum at the same time. We can listen to
the experts by investing our time and efforts in both short-term and
long-term policies to keep the public safe.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule
and in support of both bills that this rule will bring to the floor.
I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I find
myself in very strong agreement with him on every point that he raised
in his outstanding opening statement.
In regard to the energy efficiency bill, Mr. Speaker, unemployment is
a serious problem in this country, but we have much more
underemployment. We have ended up with the best educated waiters and
waitresses in the world, as many thousands of college graduates can't
find good jobs.
Our environmental rules and regulations and red tape have caused
several million good jobs to go to other countries over the last 40 or
50 years. We need more good jobs in this country, Mr. Speaker, and this
energy bill will help reduce this movement of jobs to other countries.
But, Mr. Speaker, I rise primarily today to speak in favor of the
Every Student Succeeds legislation.
In 2001, I was one of just 45 Members of the House who voted against
the No Child Left Behind Federal education law. Just 10 of those 45
remain in the House today: Republican Congressmen Sam Johnson, Walter
Jones, Joe Pitts, Dana Rohrabacher, Jim Sensenbrenner, Pete Sessions,
and myself; and Democrats John Conyers, Bobby Scott, and Maxine Waters.
This turned out to be one of the most popular votes I ever cast,
especially with teachers.
I have spoken well over a thousand times in schools through the
years, and I voted against the bill in 2001 because I felt the
teachers, principals, and parents in east Tennessee had enough common
sense and intelligence to run their own schools and classrooms and
didn't need Washington bureaucrats telling them what to do.
The No Child Left Behind law was a great overreaction to failed
schools in some of our Nation's biggest cities, and it needs to be
replaced. Today, I rise in support of the Every Student Succeeds Act so
we can leave behind the No Child Left Behind law.
As a previous speaker mentioned, the Wall Street Journal on Monday
published an editorial calling this bill ``a bipartisan compromise''
that would be ``the largest devolution of Federal control . . . in a
quarter-century.''
The paper pointed out that ``it's far better than the status quo
which would continue if nothing passes,'' and described the bill as ``a
rare opportunity for real reform.''
This bill should please many conservatives because it does away with
the Common Core mandate.
This legislation is an example of great work by my own Senator,
constituent, and friend, Senator Lamar Alexander. This bill is just one
of many reasons why Senator Alexander is one of the most respected
Members of the other body, and I commend him for his efforts to improve
our Nation's schools.
I urge all of my colleagues to support these two bills that this rule
brings to the floor.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, this bill is missing a great opportunity
where we have common ground on energy efficiency. Mr. Upton and Mr.
Whitfield are great chairmen of the subcommittee and the standing
committee and made an honest effort to try to include all of the
possible things that we could do on energy efficiency, but we came up
short.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy--and that is
made up of a lot of private sector companies that are trying to meet
the demand that their consumers, corporate consumers, and individuals
have to get more bang for their energy dollar by using less and saving
more--has said that this bill will not reduce energy consumption in the
United States. It will increase it, at a cost of about $20 billion
through 2040.
Why are we doing that? Energy efficiency is the area where we agree.
There is a lot of contentious debate about climate change; we are not
going to resolve that today. But we have bipartisan agreement that we
should use less energy. It is good for our customers, and it is good
for the economy, and it is good for the environment. We came up short.
[[Page H8880]]
Many of the costs in energy efficiency could be saved with building
codes language, which Mr. McKinley, an engineer on the Republican side,
introduced along with me. That is not in this bill.
There was a number of other bipartisan amendments that could have
been offered. One by Mr. Kinzinger, the Smart Building Acceleration
Act, should be in the bill. One by Mr. Reed, the Smart Manufacturing
Leadership Act, should be in the bill.
So energy efficiency, that is the place we can work together, and it
is the place where we save money by using less energy and improving our
economy and improving the environment as well.
The second area is the renewable fuel standards.
We have a huge debate in this Congress. If you are a corn farmer and
you are from that district, the renewable fuel standards work for you
because it increases what you get for producing corn.
Everywhere else, you are getting hammered. The cost to farmers who
have to pay grain bills is higher. The cost to consumers who have to
buy food is higher. The cost to small engine owners who have to get
more repairs is higher. And it is bad for the environment.
That has been determined, I think, to be a well-intended flop.
Many of us had amendments that were going to let this Congress vote
on the renewable fuel standard. It was denied by the Committee on Rules
because the Congressional Budget Office has said that if we actually
passed an amendment eliminating the renewable fuel standards, drivers
of pickup trucks and cars would get higher gas mileage, and, therefore,
there would be less revenue in the transportation bill from the gas
tax, and we might have to pay more to farmers as a subsidy.
Now, what is going on here when we can't take a vote on a proposal
that would have the effect of saving the driving public money on gas?
You know, I am willing to take that vote. I am willing to take the
heat for saving drivers in this country money because they can get
better mileage without ethanol in the fuel.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a real effort here on the committee to
make progress. My goal is that we keep at it and try to improve this
bill as it goes along the legislative path.
{time} 1330
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, but
I would like to speak on some of the positive benefits I see in the
education portion of this bill coming down the pike later on today.
First and foremost, I think we are learning a lot, Mr. Speaker, about
what it really means to prepare young kids for an education today. And
I believe the brain science that is unfolding in our country and the
world is helping us better understand exactly how young minds work and
how our own brains work. I think it is smart for us to send more power
back to the local districts and then support programming that can help
kids learn better.
A component of this bill, the Student Support and Academic Enrichment
grant program, allows for helping to educate well-rounded kids, allows
us to focus on well-rounded education, focus on safe and healthy kids,
and gives local school districts an opportunity to invest in programs
like the social and emotional learning programs that are going on
around this country.
It is an interesting study. A meta-analysis done of about 213
programs with 270,000 kids participating in social and emotional
learning programs saw an 11 percentile point increase in test scores.
That closes the achievement gap. We have seen a 10 percent increase in
prosocial behavior, a 10 percent decrease in antisocial behavior, and a
20 percent swing in the behavior of the kids.
We have great programs, like the MindUP program that Goldie Hawn
started, having a tremendous impact around the country.
In my own congressional district, in Warren City Schools, we have the
Inner Resilience Social and Emotional Learning program. In one of our
schools, we have seen a 60 percent reduction in out-of-school
suspensions. That is a 60 percent reduction.
And these programs are having significant benefits. If you look at
the qualities that a young person needs, I believe this bill helps us
get back to redefining what the common core is. In my estimation, the
common core is: Are we teaching kids mental discipline? the ability to
be aware? the ability to be focused? the ability to cultivate one of
the key components to a successful life, and that is the ability to
regulate your own emotional state?
This comes well before science, technology, engineering, and math.
Teaching these key, fundamental characteristics--mental discipline,
physical discipline, focus, concentration, self-regulation--are key
components before you even get to the academic side of things.
The other component in here is creating healthy schools. This gets
into the school lunches. This gets into the food that these kids eat.
If the student is not getting healthy foods, they are not going to be
able to concentrate, they are not going to be able to have a high
energy level, they are not going to be able to do well academically.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. To me, self-regulation, awareness, attention,
healthy foods, and healthy environment are the building blocks before
we even get to the academic component of what happens in the classroom.
I want to thank the committees and the conference committee for
putting this together and just recognize that I believe there is a new
way of educating our kids emerging here. There is a new common core
developing, and that is the mental discipline and the physical health
of our young people.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would
close a loophole allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy guns.
This bill would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the
terrorist watch list.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we have before us today an education bill
that is a vast improvement over the status quo. I am proud to say it is
a result of the work product between Democrats and Republicans working
together to finally replace an outdated educational law with one that
makes a lot more sense.
It maintains the original goal of ESEA from 1965--that is, to protect
the civil rights of all Americans, to ensure that no school district
can sweep under the rug or deny a quality education to any student
because of their ethnicity or race or income status--and it allows
States and districts the flexibility to meet those needs. It allows
States and districts the flexibility to do something, but not the
flexibility to do nothing. That is the fine line that Democrats and
Republicans have worked together to seek and have accomplished with
this bill.
Beginning in 2011, the Department of Education embarked on an
unprecedented process of granting annual ESEA waivers to States and
some districts. Now, you have heard that waiver process blasted from
the other side. Absent that waiver process, under the formula of
adequate yearly progress, nearly every State and district would have
been labeled a failure. So I hope that my colleagues are grateful for a
waiver process that has succeeded in granting waivers not only to my
home State of Colorado, but to most States and districts across the
country.
Now, of course, the waiver process opened up a Pandora's box. We can
all agree it gave too much power to a single Federal agency. Not
knowing who the next President is going to be, that should be something
that Democrats and Republicans are concerned about.
While President Obama and Secretary Duncan's use of the waiver
process allowed States to get out from
[[Page H8881]]
under a flawed law, we can't necessarily count on the next President to
be as generous with the waiver process in the No Child Left Behind,
which is why it is completely appropriate and why you see so many
Democrats, Republicans, educators, and school board members lining up
to say: You know what? We need better statutory guidance, and we need
to eliminate the one flawed Federal measurement of adequate yearly
progress and replace it with an accountability system that works at the
State and district level and maintains the Federal commitment to civil
rights for all students.
Now, I personally agree with some of the reforms that resulted from
the ESEA waivers, but a complex annual waiver process is at the whim of
whoever the chief executive is at a certain time. It is not sound
policy over time to improve our public schools.
I am proud to say this bill, ESEA, has broad support from a diverse
coalition of stakeholders. It has support from superintendents,
teachers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the
National Center for Learning Disabilities, the National Council of La
Raza, Third Way, the STEM Education Coalition, the National Governors
Association, and many others who are very well-regarded organizations
that support the bill. And just over the past few days, I have heard
from constituents who support the Every Student Succeeds Act.
I have spent most of my public career in education. I believe that
education is the single most powerful tool for creating opportunity,
for ending poverty, for lifting people into the middle class and
beyond.
I have served as chairman of the State Board of Education of
Colorado. I founded two charter schools. I served as superintendent of
a charter school, the New America School. During my time in Congress, I
have sat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. And on a
personal note, I have a preschool-age son.
Nothing could be more important for the future of our country than
improving our public schools. Education is important to me, just as it
is important to thousands of families in my district and parents
everywhere. The Every Student Succeeds Act is a good bill that will
move our education system forward.
I am proud to support the conference report, though, again, I am
opposed to the rule and H.R. 8, the corporate welfare for the oil and
gas industry bill, which was, unfortunately, put under the same rule as
an education bill that I think many of us can agree on.
I want to talk about some of the specific language around charter
schools that I worked hard to include in this bill.
I am proud to say that this version of the bill maintains strong
Federal support for new and innovative charter schools as well as
allowing for the replication and expansion of public charter school
models that we know work for at-risk kids.
It is one of the great things about education. For every challenge we
face, for every problem we see in public education, we also see an
example of what works: a great teacher in a classroom defying the odds
by helping at-risk students achieve; a great school; a great principal;
a great site leader who has turned around a low-performing school,
improved graduation rates, and made sure that more kids have access to
college.
These stories are a reality in districts like Denver Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Boulder Valley School District, Poudre
School District; and in districts across the country, there are
examples of what works and what doesn't work.
The truth is that the Federal Government and States need to ensure
that districts change what doesn't work, and one of the best ways to do
that is to take proven models of success and expand and replicate them.
One of those models that can work is public charter schools.
I am proud to say the public charter schools have been embraced in my
home State of Colorado. Denver Public Schools, which serves a high
percentage of at-risk kids, has over 20 percent of their children
choosing to attend public charter schools. Our State also enjoys strong
school choice across all public schools and even between districts.
This bill improves upon the charter school language by allowing the
grants to be used for expanding and replicating successful models and
upping the bar on authorizing practices and ensuring that quality
public charter schools are meeting the needs of learners across the
country.
Many of these charter schools wouldn't get off the ground without
these Federal startup grants because they don't receive any public
funds or State funds--in my home State of Colorado, until June of the
year they open; in other States, it might be a little bit different.
But generally speaking, all of those planning costs and operating costs
for that year, until they open, are not compensated because they have
no student enrollment at that point.
Believe me, it takes money to get public charter schools off the
ground. They raise money from philanthropy. Some school districts who
want more public charter schools help seed them, too. And the Federal
investment, along with that, will help ensure that these great
educators and great ideas have a chance to actually start a public
charter school that meets a real learning need in the community.
I couldn't be more proud that those priorities of the All-STAR Act
and the charter school bill passed overwhelmingly by this body in two
different legislative sessions are reflected in this final bill.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous
question, to vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote ``yes'' on the education
bill, and to vote ``no'' on the corporate welfare for the oil and gas
industry bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 11\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for further consideration of two
important bills affecting the future of this country: the country's
energy future and the future of education. They are important bills.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote
``yes'' on the rule, and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bills.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support to S. 1177, which is
a sea change that moves the nation's education system away from ``No
Child Left Behind.''
I thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and all the members of
the House and Senate Conference Committee for their work in bringing
the Every Child Succeeds Act.
As the founding member and Chair of the Congressional Children's
Caucus, I am in support of this bill because it places the education of
our nation's children first.
I am pleased that the Jackson Lee Amendment offered during the House
consideration of this bill intended to fight bullying in education
settings is included in S. 1177.
The Jackson Lee Amendment supports accountability-based programs and
activities that are designed to enhance school safety, which may
include research-based bullying prevention, cyberbullying prevention,
and disruption of recruitment activity by groups or individuals
involved in violent extremism, and gang prevention programs as well as
intervention programs regarding bullying.
Statistics on Bully:
Consider the daily reality for too many of our children who are
threatened and hurt daily and will not tell adults about their pain or
shame: 1 in 7 Students in Grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of
bullying. 90 percent of 4th to 8th Grade Students report being victims
of bullying of some type. 56 percent of students have personally
witnessed some type of bullying at school. 71 percent of students
report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school. 15 percent
of all students who don't show up for school reported being out of fear
of being bullied while at school. 1 out of 20 students has seen a
student with a gun at school. 282,000 students are physically attacked
in secondary schools each month.
Consequences of bullying: 15 percent of all school absenteeism is
directly related to fears of being bullied at school. According to
bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school
does so because of repeated bullying. Suicides linked to bullying are
the saddest statistic.
The Jackson Lee Amendment also addresses growing concerns regarding
violent extremism and student social media use.
As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland
[[Page H8882]]
Security, and Investigations, as well as a Senior Member of the
Homeland Security Committee, I believe that we must address emerging
threats where they are, and do so as early as possible.
The Every Student Succeeds Act reflects the core principles for what
today's children need to be prepared to succeed.
The bill includes support for students and schools in state
accountability plans to create an opportunity for great transparency in
making sure the classroom experiences of students will prepare them for
higher education or employment opportunities by: (1.) reducing the
amount of standardized testing in schools and decoupling high-stakes
decision making and statewide standardized tests; and, (2.) ensuring
that educators' voices are part of decision making at the federal,
state and local levels.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of Congress passing the landmark
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
It is appropriate that Congress is taking this important bipartisan
step in education reform that is drawing broad support from leading
organizations, including the following: (1.) National Education
Association; (2.) Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; (3.) National
Council of La Raza; (4.) Teach for America; (5.) U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; and (6.) Business Roundtable.
The bill before the House will move the nation toward an education
policy built for success from the classrooms to the workplace.
In 2011, the number of children enrolled in elementary, middle
schools and high schools nationally is 54,876,000, which included
38,716,000 in elementary schools and 16,160,000 in high schools.
Access to a great education is the best medicine for our nation's
disparities in our economic system and social justice challenges.
A major reason for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was the
unanimous, landmark ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Brown
v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court held that education
``is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.''
A great education lifts all aspirations and opens doors of
opportunity for every student in communities across the nation.
Today lifelong learning is an imperative for workers to remain
current and viable in the employment market place.
A great education today yield benefits far into the future as it
produces inventors, thinkers, artists, and leaders.
It is well past time to correct flaws in the ``No Child Left Behind''
law and focus on facilitating this growth and laying the foundation for
student success.
According to a 2011 report by the Brookings Institution's
Metropolitan Policy Program, ``The Hidden STEM Economy,'' 26 million
jobs, or 20 percent of all occupations, required knowledge in one or
more STEM areas.
The same report stressed that fully half of all STEM jobs available
to workers without a 4 year degree and these jobs pay on average
$53,000 a year, which is 10 percent higher than jobs with similar
education requirements.
The economy is changing rapidly and our education system needs the
guidance and support provided by H.R. 1177.
I urge all members to join with me in voting in support of H.R. 1177.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 542 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, 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.
1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of
firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected
dangerous terrorist. 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 shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill 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. 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1076.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on the adoption of the resolution, if
ordered, and the motion to instruct on H.R. 644.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 177, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 653]
YEAS--243
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
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
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
[[Page H8883]]
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
LaHood
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 (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
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
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)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--177
Adams
Aguilar
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
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
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
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
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
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--13
Bucshon
Cleaver
Cuellar
Huffman
Meeks
Nadler
Payne
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Loretta
Speier
Takai
Webster (FL)
Williams
{time} 1410
Mr. ASHFORD changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240,
noes 181, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 654]
AYES--240
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
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
Culberson
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
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
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
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
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)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--181
Adams
Aguilar
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
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
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.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
[[Page H8884]]
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
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--12
Bishop (MI)
Black
Cuellar
Marchant
McCollum
Meeks
Payne
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Loretta
Takai
Webster (FL)
Williams
{time} 1420
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.
____________________