[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1023-H1031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 44, DISAPPROVING RULE
SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RELATING TO BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 57,
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION RELATING TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND STATE PLANS; AND PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 58, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL
DISAPPROVAL OF RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RELATING TO
TEACHER PREPARATION ISSUES
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 91 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 91
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 44) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of
the Interior relating to Bureau of Land Management
regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare,
revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976. All points of order
against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The
joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House any joint resolution specified
in section 3 of this resolution. All points of order against
consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. Each
such joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in each such joint resolution are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on each such joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. The joint resolutions referred to in section 2 of
this resolution are as follows:
(a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 57) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of
Education relating to accountability and State plans under
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
(b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 58) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of
Education relating to teacher preparation issues.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. 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. BYRNE. 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 Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 91 provides for
consideration of three separate joint resolutions intended to address
government overreach by using the Congressional Review Act process. The
first measure deals with the Bureau of Land Management's Planning 2.0
rule. This rule represents a remarkable overreach that encroaches on
State and local authority.
By law, BLM is required to coordinate with local governments, but
this rule would disrupt that longstanding principle. Under the Planning
2.0 rule, faceless bureaucrats in Washington would be tasked with
micromanaging much of our Nation's land and resources. The rule also
disregards the Department of the Interior's multiple-use mission. If
left intact, the rule will harm grazing, timber, energy, mineral
development, and recreation on our public lands.
This is government overreach at its worst. The Federal Government
should not be telling communities and States what works best for them.
Decisions should be made on the local level, with site-specific
considerations, not landscape-level analyses as called for in this
rule.
For 4 years, I had the privilege of serving on the Planning
Commission for the city of Mobile. Land use planning is and has
historically been, in the United States, a local function.
Imagine a Washington bureaucrat trying to tell planning commissions
in municipalities or counties anywhere in the United States how they
are going to manage land down to the landscaping level. That is not the
role of the Federal Government. That is not what our Founding Fathers
had in mind when they created this government. Yet this regulation
would take us somewhere we have never been before.
Making matters worse, this regulation was pushed through in the
waning days of the Obama administration, making it one the many
midnight regulations jammed through at the last minute.
{time} 1230
This Congressional Review Act measure is supported by over 60
organizations, ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation to the
National Association of Counties, to the National Mining Association.
There is broad support for revisiting this misguided rule.
This rule also provides for consideration of Congressional Review Act
measures for two rules from the Department of Education. Now,
typically, in America, we think of education as a local and State
endeavor. The Federal Government provides 15 percent, on average, of
the funding for local school systems. Yet, we know that the Federal
Government comprises over 50 percent of the requirements for red tape
and paperwork. That imbalance harms our ability to deliver education at
the local level where it matters the most.
As a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, I
have been a consistent advocate for ensuring control over education is
largely left in the hands of local school boards, teachers, parents,
and administrators who know their students best.
I was very pleased to see Congress pass the Every Student Succeeds
Act in 2015, which replaced No Child Left Behind and fundamentally
changed our Nation's K-12 education policies. Even better, this was a
bipartisan effort that brought Members from both sides of the aisle
together; and, yes, it was signed by President Obama.
The Wall Street Journal called the Every Student Succeeds Act ``the
largest devolution of Federal control to the states in a quarter-
century.''
A major goal of our reform bill was to empower States to create their
own accountability systems. This is something else that has been
consistent throughout American history. We have looked to the States to
put in these accountability systems. I served on the Alabama State
Board of Education. This is much of what we did.
While there are broad-guiding principles outlined in the law, the
intent of Congress was for there to be very little Federal involvement
in the accountability process. Despite clear efforts in the Every
Student Succeeds Act to limit the influence of the Federal Secretary of
Education, the rule proposed by the Department of Education dealing
with accountability gave far too much control to the Secretary, which
ultimately harms our students.
Most concerning, the rule will restrict the flexibility that was at
the core of the philosophy behind the Every Student Succeeds Act.
We heard from local administrators, local school board members, State
superintendents of education, State school board members from all over
the country, from all types of States and all types of communities.
They wanted to have more flexibility. They wanted to have their own
control over their accountability programs.
When the rule was first proposed, leaders in the House and Senate
sent a very clear and thorough explanation of their concerns to the
Department of Education. In fact, I even expressed my concerns about
the proposed rule's contradiction of the statute directly to the
[[Page H1024]]
then-Secretary of Education. Unfortunately, most of the concerns of
Congress went unaddressed. The final rule gives far too much authority
to the Federal Department of Education and stands in direct contrast to
law passed by Congress.
As States work on their accountability plans, it is important that
they have certainty that the Federal Government will not continue to
exert undue power and influence over the process. Through this
Congressional Review Act challenge, we can ensure control is at the
State and local level and prevent unnecessary Federal overreach into
our classrooms.
Finally, this rule provides for a Congressional Review Act resolution
overturning the Obama administration's teacher preparation regulation.
This is yet another rule that would exert far too much Federal
authority over an area that has been traditionally reserved for the
States. Teacher preparation is critically important to the success of
our Nation's education system, but it is a process that has been
successfully controlled and implemented at the State level with some
grant assistance from the Federal Government.
What might work to prepare a teacher in one State is totally
different from what might work in another State. This rule makes no
acknowledgment of that fact. This regulation sets up a one-size-fits-
all Federal system, which is not what Congress intended.
As a former member of the Alabama State Board of Education, I can
attest that we have highly qualified people who worked very hard every
day to make sure we have skilled teachers in our schools who are
adequately prepared. These school board members do not need the Federal
Government to intervene and place additional burdens and requirements
on them. The challenges are serious enough as it is.
Sadly, this regulation is just another attempt to allow bureaucrats
in Washington to micromanage our States and local school districts.
Groups like the American Council on Education and The School
Superintendents Association expressed their concerns with the Federal
overreach created by this rule. This resolution would block this
unnecessary Federal involvement and keep control in the hands of the
States, where it belongs.
Each of the three bills covered by this rule focus on taking power
away from bureaucrats in Washington and, instead, empowering States and
local communities. Heavy-handed policies from Washington have failed
time and time again. It is critical that we use our power to overturn
these overreaching regulations. It is clearly what the American people
elected to us do.
Many on the other side of the aisle claim that, while they disagree
with portions of these rules, Congress should not use the CRA process
because it blocks the agencies from reissuing a rule in ``substantially
the same form.'' However, this argument ignores the fact that the
statute clearly states an agency may enact a similar rule if it is
subsequently authorized by law. Thus, the CRA gives Congress the
ability to rein in an out-of-control agency until we, the legislative
branch, can give it further instruction.
Members on both sides of the aisle should welcome the chance to use
this tool to make sure our legislative intent is actually followed by
those implementing the law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 91 and
the underlying bills.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest honors that I have had as a Member
of Congress has been the opportunity to serve on the Education and the
Workforce Committee and on the conference committee that put the Every
Student Succeeds Act together in its final form.
Before coming to Congress, I chaired the Colorado State Board of
Education; I founded two charter schools, the New America School and
the Academy of Urban Learning; and I worked closely with educators,
school board members, and parents across our State to improve the
quality of our schools in Colorado.
I know firsthand the impact that Federal education policy has on
States, on school districts, on schools, and on the families that they
serve. So when I arrived in Congress, I was excited to roll up my
sleeves and get to work on education policy.
One of the top issues in education when I arrived has always been the
desire to replace No Child Left Behind, an outdated and inflexible law
that, in many ways, set schools up for failure, with a new and better
way of making sure that every student has the opportunity to succeed.
I heard from so many of my constituents that, under No Child Left
Behind, schools were testing too much, districts lacked the flexibility
they needed, and the Colorado Department of Education--like so many
other State departments of education--was effectively at the whim of
the U.S. Department of Education with regard to their State plans,
effectively living waiver to waiver. That is no way to go about Federal
education policy. It is why the Every Student Succeeds Act was so badly
needed.
Now, early on, the work on the Every Student Succeeds Act wasn't as
collegial as it should have been. Republicans introduced a
hyperpartisan bill. It passed this Chamber with no Democrat votes and
many Republicans voting against it as well. But throughout the process,
one thing remained the same: Members were committed to moving past No
Child Left Behind and replacing it with a bill that put the interests
of students first. Finally that happened last Congress, 15 years after
the passage of No Child Left Behind and almost 6 years after the
expiration of the authorizing statute; but, finally, Congress did its
job.
I am proud to say that everyone on the Education and the Workforce
Committee has shown that we believe that every child deserves a great
education. We may have different ideas at times about how to achieve
that goal, and that is okay, but we all value the result of ensuring
opportunity for every child in our country.
It was that very commitment and value, as well as our willingness to
work together, that produced the Every Student Succeeds Act. The bill
passed overwhelmingly in the majority Republican House and Senate, and
was signed by our then-Democratic President. It was and continues to be
a bright spot of the last Congress, and what too often seems a Congress
that is overwhelmed by partisanship.
Unfortunately, the bipartisanship under ESSA potentially ends with
this bill. House Republicans have filed the resolution using the
Congressional Review Act to overturn a key regulation consistent with
the law that was finalized by the Obama administration in December.
Now, before diving into the details of this particular Congressional
Review Act that is considered under this rule, I want to say a little
bit about the process.
We should look no further than the U.S. Constitution in learning how
separation of powers works. There are three branches of government: the
legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch is separate,
independent, and coequal, and different in how they function. That is
an important background and a critical context in evaluating this
legislation.
When Congress passed and the President signed the Every Student
Succeeds Act in December of 2015, the process didn't end. Many bills,
especially one as extensive as ESSA, require clarification from the
Department of Education, the agency charged with executing the law. The
text of the ESSA anticipated that. In fact, the law describes in detail
how the Department of Education should and shouldn't write regulations.
Frankly, that had been some of the problem under No Child Left Behind,
is it lacked sufficient congressional direction with regard to the
waiver process which was used effectively at the full discretion of
then-Secretary of Education Duncan and President Obama.
It took the Department a year and a multistakeholder process,
ensuring every voice was heard. Sure enough, a year after the
legislation was passed, the Department of Education finalized its rules
on accountability.
Last week, House Republicans took the first step towards taking a
sledgehammer to that entire implementation. Rules that have extensive
buy-in from stakeholders and are the blueprint for States in developing
our State education plans would be thrown out
[[Page H1025]]
under this rule, effectively throwing public education into chaos
across all 50 States and completely disregarding the hard work of
educators, parents, school board members, superintendents, and
principals over the last year.
The two education-related CRAs we are considering on the floor were
introduced last Wednesday night. That is four legislative days between
introduction and action. Once more, the CRAs weren't treated through
the committee process. We did not consider them in the Education and
the Workforce Committee. There were no hearings, no markups. In fact,
the full Education and the Workforce Committee hasn't even had a markup
yet with regard to a K-12 bill.
I am honored to be the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, which has jurisdiction
over one of these three CRAs under this bill. We had no hearings or
markups on this bill. It is really a disservice to the over 50 new
Members of this Congress--no imprint on this bill--as well as the
Members at large, that this committee avoids the regular process.
It is also counter to promises that were made by Republican
leadership about returning to regular order. The actions today couldn't
be further from regular order because Republicans have chosen to
utilize the Congressional Review Act to move bills from introduction to
the floor without going through committee.
Unfortunately, the Congressional Review Act not only overturns
regulations, but it prevents the Department of Education from writing a
new regulation that is similar to the regulation that was overturned.
Now, Mr. Byrne mentioned that there can be subsequent legislation
that allows it. Let me point out that Every Student Succeeds Act was
over 5 years overdue. It took Congress 5 years after the initial
expiration of No Child Left Behind to even replace the authorizing
statute. So if that is Congress' intent, we are putting the cart before
the horse. We should alter or change the authorizing statute in a way
that Democrats and Republicans agree, rather than throw out the work
that has already occurred.
This statute would effectively tie the hands of the recently
confirmed Secretary of Education DeVos and prevent her from
implementing the will of this body through the Every Student Succeeds
Act.
Over the past few weeks, my office has received hundreds of pieces of
mail regarding education, largely in opposition to Secretary DeVos; but
I think the issue is that Secretary DeVos, who was recently confirmed--
this CRA would prevent her from doing her job and implementing the
Every Student Succeeds Act.
Let me just say that this guidance on accountability isn't just for
show. It is at the very heart of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which
Democrats and Republicans supported. It has real impact.
I want to close my opening remarks with a story about that real
impact from Christina in Pennsylvania, whose son has a learning
disability. Christina's son has always had a tough time in school due
to diagnosed dyslexia, dysgraphia, and ADHD. While he is a smart and
personable kid, when it came time to read and write, he could be
thought of as the ``bad'' kid too often, and he acted out.
It would have been easy for the school to write him off without the
protections that are offered under IDEA, but, luckily, he was required
to participate in assessments. That accountability encouraged the
school to work harder and to stick with it and to figure out why this
otherwise smart student couldn't read simple words in different places
on a page or demonstrate his achievement of knowledge.
{time} 1245
If his school wasn't required to show student progress, there
wouldn't have been the incentive for them to invest their time and
money in helping his special needs. Without accountability, Christina's
son's school would have had little incentive to set appropriate
educational goals for him and offer the support necessary to reach
them.
Accountability requirements inform school administrators, teachers,
parents, students, and the community at large that all students have a
learning goal and make sure that all students have the tools to get
there.
Today, Christina's son is a college freshman majoring in biology with
a 3.2 GPA. The accountability in this CRA that would be thrown out
would undermine the very accountability that allowed not only
Christina's son to succeed but so many other children across our
country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond just briefly to a couple of
points that my colleague from Colorado made, and I want to compliment
him and his service on our committee. He is a tremendous member, and we
appreciate his leadership.
We had a little bit of a constitutional law lesson there. The truth
of the matter is, the Department of Education only exists because of an
act of Congress. The only powers it has are the powers that we give
them through the authorizing legislation. What we authorize, we can
unauthorize.
The Every Student Succeeds Act took back a number of things we had
authorized under No Child Left Behind. This is no violation of the
separation of powers under the Congressional Review Act when we look at
a rule-making authority that we have given to a Federal agency and see
that they have done it in a way that is contrary to congressional
intent and we take it back. We have the authority to do that, and we
should take it back when we see overreach like this.
He also brought up how this might tie the hands of our new Secretary
of Education, and I will take this point in time to congratulate her on
her confirmation. What this will require her to do is to work with the
Congress to make sure that we are on the same page.
I remember very clearly when the former Secretary of Education came
before our committee. I, and many others, pleaded with him not to put
out this rule because we told him this is not in keeping with the
intent of Congress and with the words of Congress in the statute. He
went forward anyway.
I believe Secretary DeVos is going to work with Congress to make
sure, as the Department of Education, under her management begins to
implement this law, it is done so in keeping with the letter and the
spirit of the law.
I hope that that is what we will do between the legislative branch
and the executive branch and every department of government, but, in
the last 8 years, we didn't see very much of that. We basically had the
executive branch of government force feeding things to us.
I think it is high time that we take action, whatever party we are
in, to exercise our Article I powers to make sure we maintain control
over the things we created through our authorizing statutes.
So I don't foresee the problems with the incoming Secretary of
Education that my good friend from Colorado does.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Byrne) for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a part of the country that is the economic
engine of not only Texas but our entire Nation. My Houston area
district and the surrounding districts are responsible for some of the
strongest economic growth in our entire country. These are good, well-
paying jobs. There are few places in the Nation where you can graduate
from high school, get some trade school certifications, and then be
earning close to six figures just a couple of years out of high school.
You can do that in my district, where the petrochemical plants are
thriving because of the low cost of crude oil and natural gas.
Manufacturing is coming back and growing strongly in the petrochemical
sector. Over $150 billion is being invested by American chemical
countries across the Nation, with the largest concentration in the
Houston area.
The previous administration took numerous steps to stop the oil and
gas boom, and the Bureau of Land Management rule that was published in
the waning days of the Obama administration was an example of one such
overreach. This ill-advised rule was aimed at removing States and
localities from
[[Page H1026]]
the BLM decisionmaking process and centralizing decisionmaking by a few
political appointees here in Washington, D.C.
This move simply undermines local communities and States. It
undermines our ability to develop oil and gas resources on public
lands. It threatens American jobs.
I call on my colleagues to put American manufacturing first. A vote
for this bill today is a vote for American manufacturing jobs, many of
them high-paying, blue-collar jobs and many of them union jobs across
America's petroleum and chemical plants.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support and vote for this bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am seeing a lot of feigned indignation about the
accountability provisions of this bill. It wasn't that long ago when we
passed the Every Student Succeeds Act when Democrats and Republicans
came down here and said we are giving the Secretary specific authority
around accountability for preventing Secretaries from doing rogue
things that both sides have perceived previous Secretaries had done,
and the authorizing statute was passed by Democrats and Republicans.
Now, all of a sudden, we have Republicans coming down here gutting
the very accountability provisions that they themselves lauded under
the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act, which passed in this body
overwhelmingly, as well as in the U.S. Senate.
It is a little hard to understand how Republicans are upset with the
very authority around specific parameters around that authority that
they specifically gave to the Secretary of Education. Again, if there
are particular quibbles, there is a different Secretary of Education
now. Those rules can be changed through a stakeholder process--and they
may very well be--but now Republicans are seeking to tie the hands of
the new Secretary of Education and throwing out all of the hard work
that I got to see people in Colorado working on, and I know occurred in
many other States, to come up with thoughtful, sensible accountability
plans that met the legislative intent of Democrats and Republicans in
this body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that the previous question and the
rule should be defeated not just because it is designed to undo the
protections that help the American people but because voting for this
will prevent Congress, this Chamber, this body from clearly rejecting
some of the White House's worst behavior.
Just over a week ago, the White House issued a statement on
International Holocaust Remembrance Day. That statement failed to
mention that 6 million Jewish people were killed in the Holocaust. It
never mentioned them.
It is deeply troubling because the United States has, until now, been
at the forefront of the fight against efforts that would deny the
extent of Jewish suffering and death during the Holocaust. And yes,
there are still many deniers of the Holocaust who traffic in conspiracy
and claim the whole thing never happened.
It should be a shocking omission coming from the White House, but,
frankly, not all that surprising for an administration based on a
campaign that trafficked in anti-Semitism.
But you know what? I thought to myself: maybe they will fix the
statement; maybe this is all a misunderstanding, an accident. But no,
they didn't fix it. They doubled down and they defended it. Not only
that, we found out that the White House purposely took out the language
stating that Jews died in the Holocaust. So it was not an error. It was
purposeful from beginning to end.
Now, I know this: the White House thinks it is living in a post-
factual world. They think that they can get away with saying anything
they like and anything they want and that people will just believe it.
But the truth is, what they say has very, very real consequences.
Even after our parents and grandparents, the Greatest Generation,
fought and worked so hard to defeat Nazism, now we see a public dinner
party held right here in this city where people were doing the Nazi
salute.
Even after there has been so much work to stop targeting religions,
now we are seeing a resurgence of swastikas across the country and
around the world.
Even after law enforcement has worked hard to protect our people, now
there is a wave of bomb threats against synagogues.
This is what is happening. This is fact. Frankly, those now feeling
emboldened were inspired by the President, first in his campaign and
now in his Presidency.
We all know that one of the President's members of his National
Security Council led a website that fosters extremist views. So don't
count me amongst the surprised when the White House issues a statement
like this, but don't expect me to accept it either. None of us,
Democrat nor Republican, should accept it.
So I urge my colleagues to vote against this previous question,
against this rule, to allow consideration of a resolution that states
this Congress' clear position against Holocaust deniers. We need to
restate the truth as clearly as we can.
The White House was wrong on this issue, and here are some more
facts. Yes, the Holocaust happened. No, the Jewish people weren't
simply another group of people in a long list of targets. The Holocaust
was designed to eliminate the Jewish people from the face of the Earth.
Other groups of people were targeted and killed, but anti-Semitism was
at the core of the Nazi ideology of a Final Solution.
As the late Nobel Peace Prize recipient Elie Wiesel said, while
receiving the Congressional Gold Medal from President Ronald Reagan:
``It is true that not all victims were Jews, but all the Jews were
victims.''
I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this
measure so that we can, in a bipartisan way, express the truth. If
people aren't going to tell the truth about this then we are all lost.
Truthfully, I found the White House statement to be shameful. It
needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. This is your chance to lend
your voice to the record. Will you stand with me? Will you stand
against Jewish Holocaust deniers? Don't be enablers. This is your
opportunity. There may not be another to repudiate what the White House
has done.
Vote ``no'' on this previous question and vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passionate remarks of the gentleman
from New York. The Holocaust is something that all of us should learn
more about and take seriously.
There are people today who would seek to destroy the Nation of
Israel. The leadership of Iran has said that over and over again, yet
the previous administration reached an egregious deal with them that
puts the Nation of Israel at risk.
So I take no back seat to anybody in standing up for the Jewish
people, as I and many other people in this body have done, but we are
here today to talk about two education bills and a third bill dealing
with the Bureau of Land Management. I would like to redirect our debate
to those subjects.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Holocaust was an unspeakable atrocity resulting in
the murder of more than 6 million Jews. As a Jewish American, it is
very difficult to talk about. But, of course, in my own family, I can
only imagine the grief that my grandparents and great grandparents had
not knowing, not hearing from their relatives in the old country. And,
of course, finding out the very worst--that they had disappeared.
{time} 1300
I know my Uncle Henry, who lives in New York with his wife, Arlene,
my dad's sister, who was able to escape Vienna on a Kindertransport,
one of the very last ones, as a young man, effectively growing up as an
orphan in Switzerland during the war and escaping the mass slaughter
that killed most of
[[Page H1027]]
his family targeted, of course, merely because they were Jews.
The Holocaust was a deliberate and planned act of slaughter and
genocide against the Jewish people; and the fact that it was targeted
against the Jewish people, resulting in over 6 million deaths, cannot
be delinked from our remembrance of one of the greatest horrors of
modern history.
It is especially troubling in the current environment, where we have
seen an increase in anti-Semitism and racism, generally, since the
election of President Trump. Just last week, the Jewish Community
Center in my district in Boulder, Colorado, had to close because of a
bomb threat, the families and children sent home. We have seen
swastikas on New York City subways and in our schools.
Frankly, I think many Jewish Americans are fearful about what the
intentions are of the occupant of the White House and his top advisers
and what we can do as a country to combat this; and it is exactly the
wrong message to send on Holocaust Remembrance Day, to leave out the
obvious truth that continues to be denied by anti-Semitic leaders
around the world, including former Presidents of Iran and Supreme
Leaders of Iran and others, that the Holocaust was a deliberate effort
of terror and genocide directed against the Jewish people by the Nazi
regime.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Mr. Crowley's resolution which would
reiterate the fact that the Nazi regime targeted the Jewish people and
calls on the executive branch to affirm this fact.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, over the last few years, one complaint I have
heard over and over is how inconsistent education policy has been.
States have been using waivers at the discretion of the Department of
Education. Finally, educators, school board members, families, hope
that ESSA, the Every Student Succeeds Act, could provide more
stability. Unfortunately for States, undoing the accountability CRA
would only reenergize that uncertainty.
For months, States have been working on their State plans, and I have
had the opportunity to join our Colorado group that has been working on
that plan as required under the Every Student Succeeds Act. We have had
guidance from the Department of Education since last November, and we
have been writing our State plans with that in mind. Now, if this
regulation is overturned, it would pull the rug out from States that
have been working diligently to enact their plans.
Likewise, H.J. Res. 58, another education-related bill that would
occur under this rule, would effectively unravel the Department of
Education's teacher preparation regulations. In the Higher Education
Act, States are required to assess the effectiveness of teacher prep
programs, and this regulation simply provides guidance for how States
can do that, making sure our teacher training programs work, making
sure that we are improving the quality of our public educators.
This provision also requires that TEACH grant recipients attend high-
performing teacher prep programs. It is not a matter of picking winners
and losers; it is making sure that our taxpayer dollars are used
effectively to train high-quality educators.
If money is going to be invested in future teachers at high-needs
schools, we want to make sure that teachers are attending the highest
quality programs available. At the end of the day, a great education
starts with a great teacher in the classroom, and this requirement
ensures that even the neediest students have access to a great teacher.
Taken together, these two bills represent a strategic attempt by
Republicans to undermine public education.
The other CRA, which is completely unrelated to the two education-
related CRAs, is actually related to a land management issue. I want to
describe why that is a bad idea as well.
I come from a Western State. My district that I represent is over 60
percent public lands, so this BLM plan will actually affect my
district, and that is why I am so impassioned to speak here today and
listen to others in my State about this rule.
A revision of this BLM plan is long overdue. Few plans or rules can
remain relevant for decades, and BLM's planning was last drafted in
1983. Needing a new planning system may not sound like the most
exciting thing in the world, but it is actually critical because it can
impact everything from cultural to environmental resources, to jobs in
the economy in our district which relate to our use of public lands.
That is why I have been contacted by groups of sportsmen, county
commissioners, outdoor recreation groups, and conservationists asking
how Congress can be wasting their time repealing something that makes
BLM's process more transparent and conclusive.
Local control and constituent input are top priorities for those of
us who live in and around public land, particularly in the West, so it
makes sense that many counties and groups in Colorado who have worked
with BLM offices on land use are pleading with Congress not to use a
CRA to repeal this commonsense rule and join their voices with ours in
opposition to this rule and this bill. The kinds of groups opposed to
this bill include the International Mountain Bicycling Association
because they know that, even though the planning process isn't perfect
and, of course, can be refined, it would be a huge mistake to throw out
the whole thing and bar the BLM from making necessary modernizations
moving forward, especially when the Republicans are in the driver's
seat.
Hunting and fishing groups and outdoor industry businesses, like the
Outdoor Industry Association, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, know that this planning
process will give them the voice they need in the planning process
without diminishing anyone else's role. I believe that those who have
actually experienced and been part of the process are the voices that
need to be heeded when we are determining if the planning has been a
success.
Here are a few of the quotes from some counties in Western States
that have been part of the process and support the new planning system.
From Lewis and Clark County in Idaho:
A great example of the potential of Planning 2.0 can be
found in eastern and central Idaho, where the BLM is
preparing to engage in a land use planning process for public
lands from the big desert to the benches of the Salmon River.
At the behest of local BLM leadership, which has already been
operating under the spirit of Planning 2.0, a number of
sporting groups, conservation organizations, and Salmon
Valley stewardship have reached out to a wide-ranging
constituency of ranchers, loggers, motorized users,
sportsmen, and other groups. The benefit of this early
conversation can be very valuable to sportsmen. Take the
Donkey Hills at the headwaters of the Pahsimeroi River as an
example. There has been near unanimous agreement that the
critical elk calving area in the Donkey Hills needs
thoughtful consideration as a critical wildlife area.
From Missoula County, Montana:
Western Montana, where the Missoula BLM field offices
engaged in a land-use planning revision process for public
lands from the John Long Range to Joshua Park all the way to
the Garnet Range, through this process, BLM has piloted the
steps in Planning 2.0 to further engage the public in land
management decisions.
I include in the Record letters from both of these counties, as well
as a letter from a group of outdoor industries asking for this body to
oppose the CRA.
Lewis & Clark County,
Board of County Commissioners,
Helena, Montana.
Re the Bureau of Land Management's Proposed Resource
Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg. 8674 (February
25, 2016).
Neil Kornze,
Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, DC.
Dear Director Kornze: The Lewis and Clark County Board of
County Commissioners offer this letter of support for
provisions of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's)
Proposed Resource Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg.
8674 (Feb. 25. 2016) (the Proposed Rules). We appreciate the
effort to improve opportunities for public involvement
earlier in the planning processes, including the chance to
review preliminary resource management alternatives and
preliminary rationales for those alternatives.
We value our relationship with our federal partners, and
our constituents are impacted
[[Page H1028]]
greatly by actions taken by your agency. Increasing access to
the planning process and targeting your efforts towards
greater public involvement enhances the relationship between
the people and their government, and we support your
initiative.
Additionally, we note that the Proposed Rules also expand
opportunities for states and local governments to have
meaningful involvement in the development of BLM's land use
decisions. The Proposed Rules continue to provide for
coordination with state and local representatives in order to
ensure, to the extent available under federal law, that RMPs
are consistent with state and local land use plans, as
provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976.
Sincerely.
Michael Murray,
Chairman
Susan Good Geise,
Vice Chair
Andy Hunthausen,
Member
____
Board of County Commissioners,
Missoula, MT, May 23, 2016.
Re Proposed Resource Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed, Reg.
8674.
Director Neil Kornze,
Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, DC.
Dear Director Kornze: We are writing you to commend you and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for your efforts to
improve BLM's planning process (Planning 2.0) and better
address the diverse interests found in Missoula County and
other communities across the western United States.
Missoula County is approximately 2,600 square miles in
size, and federal management in the county accounts for 52
percent of the land ownership. The BLM manages roughly 23,000
acres for the public in Missoula County and the sustainable
management of these public lands is vitally important to the
residents we represent Our citizens and local economies
depend on state and federal lands for water quality and
quantity, as well as for multiple sustainable uses ranging
from outdoor recreation to livestock grazing to mineral
exploration and development. Consequently, we wish to thank
the BLM for proposing to address their land management
options from a landscape perspective. This approach
recognizes that the management of federal lands has a direct
impact on other properties well beyond those close to or
adjacent to BLM managed land.
We support the provisions of the BLM's Proposed Resource
Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg, 8674 (Feb. 25, 2016).
These rules provide additional opportunities for public
involvement earlier in the planning process, including the
chance to review preliminary resource management alternatives
and preliminary rationales for those alternatives. This early
public involvement will help resolve conflicts and produce a
Resource Management Plan that better reflect the needs of our
citizens as well as others who use the public lands and have
a stake in their future. Equally important is the improved
openness and transparency the rules bring to the process,
allowing any local government to actively participate and
share information on issues critical to local residents and
their elected representatives.
The proposed rules continue to provide for coordination
with state and local representatives in order to ensure, to
the extent allowable under federal law, that Resource
Management Plans are consistent with state and local land use
plans, as provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976.
Thank you for considering our comments. If you or your
staff have any questions, please feel free to contact us or
our Chief Planning Officer, Patrick O'Herren.
Sincerely,
Nicole Rowley,
Chair.
Jean Curtiss,
Commissioner.
Stacy Rye,
Commissioner.
____
February 3, 2017.
Re H.J. Res. 44 to disapprove BLM's Planning 2.0 rulemaking.
Rep. Liz Cheney,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Cheney: As representatives of the outdoor
recreation community and industry, we write to express our
support for the Bureau of Land Management's Planning 2.0
initiative and our opposition to its disapproval through the
Congressional Review Act. Collectively, our members recreate
on BLM lands across the country and have a deep and personal
interest in the management of these areas, and these public
lands are also essential to supporting our businesses. While
Planning 2.0 may require improvements, those necessary
targeted changes would be foreclosed by a CRA disapproval,
drastically setting back the ability of BLM to deliver much
needed modernizations to the agency's planning process.
In our experience with land management planning across
agencies, a modern approach to planning built on robust
public engagement from the earliest stages of the planning
process is a tremendous benefit to land use management. It is
an essential step toward alleviating conflicts, ensuring
appropriately balanced and ordered uses, and stewarding our
country's public lands. Although there are aspects of BLM's
Planning 2.0 rulemaking that could be improved, this effort
has produced a strong step forward for the agency's planning
process, and we believe strongly that throwing this
rulemaking out in its entirety would be a costly and
unproductive decision.
During the Planning 2.0 development process, BLM engaged in
impressive public outreach and worked in an open and
collaborative fashion with a full spectrum of public lands
stakeholders. We believe the outcome is a process that
provides greatly improved opportunities for public input in
land use planning, in particular in helping the agency better
understand the values Americans ascribe to their public
lands, including where people go, why people go there, and
the experiences that these landscapes enable that are an
essential part of their inherent value. It also does a much
better job of recognizing the importance of recreation,
including for local economies, and greatly improves the
agency's ability to handle data.
Our feedback on this rulemaking is in part based on our
experience with the Forest Service's 2012 revisions to its
planning rule, which made similar changes to the Forest
Service's planning process. As that rule is being
implemented, we are seeing a significantly more transparent
process, with better up-front data collection and more
opportunities for collaboration. In North Carolina, for
example, where we have been engaged in Forest Planning on the
Nantahala-Pisgah Forests, loggers and hunters, kayakers and
off-road enthusiasts have been working side-by-side to
develop consensus recommendations for the Forest Service. Far
from circumventing local input, these modern planning
processes reward long-term, local engagement, and empower
local communities to develop visions for their public lands
in concert with a full array of stakeholders.
Planning 2.0 has been a valuable step in helping BLM
modernize its planning process, and we believe strongly
that--while targeted improvements to the rulemaking may be
possible--this rulemaking should not be thrown out through
the Congressional Review Act. Congress is well positioned to
pursue necessary changes or improvements with the new
administration, whereas CRA disapproval would not only block
these changes, but stymie future agency efforts at
modernization.
Thank you for considering our perspective on maintaining
this important step in modernizing BLM planning.
Best regards,
Adam Cramer,
Executive Director, Outdoor Alliance.
John Sterling,
Executive Director, The Conservation Alliance.
Amy Roberts,
Executive Director, Outdoor Industry Association.
Tim Blumenthal,
President, PeopleForBikes.
Mr. POLIS. Finally, in my home State of Colorado, a great example of
stakeholders who know the new process is working is Park County, which
I have the honor of representing part of. As part of revising the
Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan, the Royal Gorge Field Office
in Colorado has already embraced and implemented some of the ideas for
Planning 2.0, including recent envisioning sessions that involve
multiple stakeholders.
I include in the Record a letter from Park County, Colorado.
County of Park,
Board of County Commissioners,
May 12, 2016.
Re the Bureau of Land Management's Proposed Resource
Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg. 8674 (February
25, 2016).
Neil Kornze,
Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, DC.
Dear Director Kornze: The undersigned representatives of
local government are writing to share their support for
provisions of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's)
Proposed Resource Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg.
8674 (Feb. 25, 2016) (the Proposed Rules). In particular, we
support the provisions of the Proposed Rules that provide
additional opportunities for public involvement earlier in
the planning process, including the chance to review
preliminary resource management alternatives and preliminary
rationales for those alternatives.
Each of undersigned representatives come from local
jurisdictions whose land bases include substantial amounts of
public lands managed by BLM. The management of these public
lands is vitally important to the citizens we represent Our
citizens and local economies depend on these lands for
sustainable multiple uses, from outdoor recreation to
livestock grazing to mineral exploration and development.
The current BLM planning methodology lacks adequate
opportunities for public involvement, particularly early in
the process. It also lacks transparency. It often results in
a range of alternatives that fails to address the concerns of
all stakeholders. The proposed changes would provide the
public with
[[Page H1029]]
an opportunity to raise concerns and review potential
management alternatives before these alternatives become
solidified in a draft Resource Management Plan (RMP). This
early public involvement will hopefully help resolve
conflicts and produce RMPs that better reflect the needs of
our citizens as well as others who use the public lands and
have a stake in their future.
In addition, we note that the Proposed Rules also expand
opportunities for states and local governments to have
meaningful involvement in the development of BLM's land use
decisions. The Proposed Rules continue to provide for
coordination with state and local representatives in order to
ensure, to the extent available under federal law, that RMPs
are consistent with state and local land use plans, as
provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976.
Sincerely,
Mike Brazell,
Chairman, County of Park.
Mr. POLIS. It reads, in part: ``The current BLM planning methodology
lacks adequate opportunities for public involvement, particularly early
in the process.''
This rule that the CRA would invalidate addresses some of the
shortcomings in the current rule. This last point is especially
important, that changes would provide the public with an opportunity to
raise concerns and review potential management alternatives before
those alternatives become solidified. By having an opportunity for
early involvement, BLM can actually avoid expensive litigation after a
plan is complete.
This legislation is not only good for transparency, public
involvement, and environmental and wildlife protections, but it saves
taxpayer dollars. I don't know how anyone can oppose that. The process
has widespread support from those of us who live in and around public
land, from people who are on the ground, including landowners, farmers,
ranchers, sportsmen, and conservationists.
In a hearing in the Committee on Natural Resources, one of our
witnesses was a rancher from my home State of Colorado, who eloquently
spoke about how the old system was not working and how this desperately
needed new system had worked well in its limited implementation.
BLM Planning 2.0 is working, and a CRA that will never allow the BLM
to modernize its process, the process that has been locked in place
since 1983, is simply thoughtless legislating for cheap political
points.
Mr. Speaker, the resolutions before us today represent everything
that is wrong with Washington. When our constituents sent us here to
Washington, D.C., they weren't asking us to engage in partisan
bickering and using brutal techniques to undo thoughtful, nuanced
regulation. If Members of this body have problems with rules that have
been promulgated, change the authorizing statutes; don't simply prevent
the agencies from enacting the very things that this body has told them
to do. It doesn't make sense.
We have not engaged in regular order. We have avoided a thoughtful,
deliberative process, and, unfortunately, the resolutions before us are
yet another example of that. These resolutions undermine the basic
responsibility of the Department of Education and the Bureau of Land
Management. They are a shortsighted strategy for governing that will
have long-term negative consequences for our public lands and our use
thereof, as well as for children in our schools and educators.
We should fix accountability and make it work in education rather
than throw it out. We should make sure that our teacher training
programs and those whom we support with your taxpayer money are the
best possible teacher training programs; and, of course, we should have
a multistakeholder process around use of our public lands, including
recreationists, residents, county commissioners, and others.
For that reason, I strongly oppose the rules before us. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.'' I also urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question so we can bring up Mr. Crowley's bill, which I think
is a bill that would receive, hopefully, unanimous support in this body
with regard to the remembrances of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about regular order. This particular
regulation from the Bureau of Land Management was enacted very quickly
and hurriedly without input from State and county governments. So,
essentially, this was a hurried-through rule that didn't have the
regular order input that it should have had, yet another reason why it
should be reversed through this Congressional Review Act.
But it is also the case that this doesn't mean the BLM doesn't have
any authority here. They can go back to their old regulation, which was
already in place, and they can come up with a new rule so long as it is
not a substantially similar rule, or they can come to us and seek
specific authorization. The truth of the matter is this particular
regulation has had so many problems, it cannot be tweaked or amended.
They need to start all over again and take input from State and local
government.
Now, I heard the gentleman talk about people who hunt and fish. I am
a lifelong hunter and fisherman. In fact, I believe the gentleman has
invited me to come to Colorado to go fishing with him, and I have
invited him to come to the Gulf to come fishing with me. I spend a lot
of my time with people who hunt and fish all over the country, and I
have never heard anybody in the hunting and fishing community say: I
really want the Federal Government to tell me when and how and where I
can hunt and fish. Quite the opposite. My friends who hunt and fish
want the Federal Government to stay out of it. They would rather let
local and State people make those sorts of decisions, particularly as
they pertain to land use management.
On the education issues, as I said before, I was an 8-year member of
the Alabama State Board of Education. My colleague from Colorado said
something that is so true: getting a high-quality, well-trained, caring
teacher in the classroom is the most important thing we can do for our
schoolchildren. I don't trust the Federal Government to do that better
than I trust State and local officials to do it.
We had this law, No Child Left Behind, that gave the Federal
Government the power to determine when a teacher was highly qualified
or not. I don't think anybody in Washington knows better how to assess
whether a teacher is highly qualified or not than the principal and
superintendent that that teacher works for, than the local school board
that that teacher works for. There is nobody up here who can know that
better than they can.
There is nobody up here who can do a better job of looking at the
teacher preparation programs and saying they are good or bad than State
school boards, most of whom, like me, were elected by the people,
accountable to the people, instead of somebody up here who sits in some
office and makes that decision for them.
Do we really think that is what the American people want? The
American people want control of their lives back. They are tired of
Washington bureaucrats telling them what to do, and they are really
tired of the Federal Government telling the people they entrust with
the education of their children what to do and what not to do. They
want the people who make those decisions to be the people who live in
their communities, that they see in church, that they see at the
grocery store, that they interact with at the school every day. That is
what they want. And they want us, the Federal Government, to get out of
the way.
{time} 1315
I talked to dozens and dozens of people who are school board members
and teachers and people involved in the school administration who said
this regulation by the Department of Education Accountability is way
over the line, please don't let them go through with that. So we are
being responsive to those people in doing this, and I am proud that we
are.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
91 and the underlying joint resolutions.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 91 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall proceed to the consideration, without
intervention of
[[Page H1030]]
any point of order, in the House of the resolution (H. Res.
78) reiterating the indisputable fact that the Nazi regime
targeted the Jewish people in its perpetration of the
Holocaust and calling on every entity in the executive branch
to affirm that fact. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Resolution 78.
____
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. BYRNE. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reed). 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 187, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 81]
YEAS--234
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--187
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Beatty
Chaffetz
Cooper
Jackson Lee
Mulvaney
Poe (TX)
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Sires
Smith (WA)
Zinke
[[Page H1031]]
{time} 1336
Messrs. CUELLAR and PETERSON changed their 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 233,
noes 186, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 82]
AYES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--186
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Beatty
Chaffetz
Cooper
Hastings
Jackson Lee
Marchant
Mulvaney
Poe (TX)
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Sires
Smith (WA)
Zinke
{time} 1343
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.
____________________