[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.

                          ____________________