[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19204-19213]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY 
      SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1177, STUDENT SUCCESS ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 542 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 542

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 8) to modernize energy 
     infrastructure, build a 21st century energy and manufacturing 
     workforce, bolster America's energy security and diplomacy, 
     and promote energy efficiency and government accountability, 
     and for other purposes. No further general debate shall be in 
     order. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-36. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill 
     (S. 1177) to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves. 
     All points of order against the conference report and against 
     its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit if applicable.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 542 provides for a rule to 
continue consideration of the comprehensive energy legislation on which 
the House began its work yesterday.
  The rule makes in order 38 amendments to be considered on the House 
floor, 22 of which are sponsored by Democratic Members of the House, 12 
of which are sponsored by Republicans, and 4 of which were submitted as 
bipartisan amendments.
  Further, the minority will be afforded the standard motion to 
recommit--a final opportunity to amend the bill prior to its passage.
  H. Res. 542 further provides for a rule to consider the conference 
report to S. 1177, the Student Success Act, which will move the 
country's education system beyond No Child Left Behind and return the 
responsibility of educating our children to local and State 
authorities, where it appropriately belongs.
  As with all conference reports brought before the House, the rule 
provides that debate on the measure will be conducted under the 
standing rules of the House and will further provide for a motion to 
recommit, allowing the minority yet another opportunity to amend the 
legislation before its final passage.
  The amendments that the Rules Committee made in order allow the House 
to weigh in on a number of important issues within the sphere of energy 
policy, from crude oil exports, to the Federal Government's policy on 
fossil fuel usage, to siting and regulatory reforms at the Department 
of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  I do wish to highlight an amendment that unfortunately was not made 
in order, one that I submitted to the Rules Committee, as well, during 
the markup of H.R. 8 in Energy and Commerce.
  It has become clear to me, having worked on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee over the past 10 years, that the authority given to the 
Department of Energy to regulate and mandate efficiency standards in 
consumer products was both initially misguided and ultimately has 
proven to be cumbersome and unworkable.
  Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong believer in energy 
efficiency. However, government-mandated efficiency standards have 
proven to be the wrong approach.
  For this reason, I submitted an amendment to repeal the Federal 
energy conservation standards, which dictate how energy efficient 
consumer products must be before they can be sold in the United States.
  These mandates cover products from light bulbs--and, on this, we have 
successfully blocked it due to overwhelming public outrage--to ceiling 
fans, to air conditioners, to heaters, to furnaces. The list goes on 
and on.

[[Page 19205]]

  The Federal Government should not be setting these standards. 
Companies and, more importantly, their customers should be the driving 
force in this decision. This is about letting the free market drive 
innovation and technological advances. The government should trust the 
people to make the right decisions when it comes to the products that 
they buy.
  When the government sets the efficiency standard for a product, that 
often becomes the ceiling. When the market drives the standard, there 
is no limit to how fast and how aggressive manufacturers will 
ultimately be when consumers demand more efficient and better products.
  Mr. Speaker, government standards have proven to be unworkable. Every 
single time the Department of Energy proposes to set a new efficiency 
standard for any product, manufacturers run to their Members of 
Congress, asking us to sign letters to the Department of Energy to 
implore them not to set unworkable standards. It is a predictable 
occurrence for every rule.
  Even in H.R. 8, we are conceding that the Department of Energy is 
moving in the wrong direction with furnace standards, and Congress has 
to step in and mitigate. In fact, Congress should be getting out of the 
way of the relationship between companies and their customers.
  How many times during the appropriations process are we asked to vote 
on amendments blocking the Department of Energy from regulating 
consumer products because the Federal Government does not understand 
how to run a business? Instead of that approach, we should be removing 
the Department of Energy's authority altogether.
  The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution was meant as a 
limitation on Federal power. The Framers intended that clause to be 
used to ensure that commerce could flow freely among the several 
States. It was never intended to allow the Federal Government to 
micromanage everyday consumer products.
  If the clause were truly meant to be that expansive, then the 10th 
Amendment would be meaningless. There would be no authority left to 
reserve to the States. This view of the Commerce Clause was reaffirmed 
most recently by the Supreme Court in the National Federation of 
Independent Business v. Sebelius.
  The Commerce Clause does not and cannot extend so far as to allow the 
Federal Government to regulate products that do not pose a risk to 
health or safety. There is a place for the FDA to regulate safe food 
and drugs and for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to 
regulate the safety of cars on the roads, but to give the Federal 
Government the authority to regulate how efficient a product should be 
really seems to cross a constitutional line.
  Congress has already stepped in to block the Department of Energy 
from setting efficiency standards for light bulbs--not because Congress 
gained wisdom. It was because the American people understood clearly 
that this was government overreach at its worst, and they demanded it 
be fixed.
  But the same can and should be said about every consumer product that 
the Department of Energy has been given the authority to regulate in 
the efficiency space. From light bulbs, to furnaces, to air 
conditioners, to ceiling fans, the Department of Energy should not be 
telling manufacturers how to make their products.
  I also want to say one thing about the amendment to H.R. 8 that was 
submitted by the Representative from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), which was 
also, unfortunately, not made in order.
  This amendment was based, in part, on a series of GAO studies that I 
and Senator Markey had commissioned to study the Department of Energy's 
management of uranium issues and its impact on the domestic uranium 
mining industry.
  It is a critical issue for those of us from Western States. And it is 
my hope, as this body continues to work to protect that industry from 
further legally suspect actions by the Department of Energy, that Mrs. 
Lummis' wishes will be achieved.
  The education conference report, known as the Every Student Succeeds 
Act, is a bipartisan compromise to reauthorize and reform our education 
system.
  For the past 13 years, our students and our schools have been 
struggling to meet the rigorous and often unrealistic demands of No 
Child Left Behind.
  No Child Left Behind attempted to improve school accountability by 
conditioning increased funding on annual testing requirements and pass 
rates. One hundred percent of students were supposed to be proficient 
by 2014, with failing schools being required to restructure under 
Federal guidelines.
  A vote against the Every Student Succeeds Act today is a vote to keep 
No Child Left Behind in place, to keep the onerous average yearly 
progress standards in place, and to keep the high-stakes testing in 
place that so many of our constituents deplore.
  This compromise, which was worked out in committee, is a vast 
improvement. It is not a perfect bill by any stretch, but it is a vast 
improvement. And, really, for the first time, it moves control back 
into the hands of States and local districts, where it belongs.
  It eliminates the waiver process by repealing the adequate yearly 
progress Federal accountability system. For years, school boards in my 
district have been requesting relief from having to obtain waivers from 
the Department of Education.
  This bill will allow local districts to set their own testing 
requirements and standards to determine whether a student or a school 
is struggling as well as how to improve.
  Common Core incentives are eliminated. Let me repeat that. Common 
Core incentives are eliminated.
  The Federal Government created the Federal education regulations and 
mandated their adoption by withholding funds from schools. This 
intervention is another example of the Federal Government's prescribing 
its best practices over those schools and teachers who, every day, get 
up and go to work to do their best. They know their students. They know 
how best to teach them. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, this 
stops.
  This bill also provides States with new funding flexibility by 
allowing States to determine how to spend their Federal dollars--on 
average, 7 percent per year. In my State, this is more than $225 
million annually that the State will be able to allocate in the most 
effective and the most efficient way possible.
  This bill is a 4-year authorization. That is an important point. 
Regardless of how you feel about the current administration, it will 
not be the current administration in 4 years' time. That will allow the 
next administration, whoever he or she may be, the opportunity to 
better evaluate education programs and, my hope is, to continue to 
reduce the Federal role for our students, schools, and teachers in 
Texas and throughout the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am glad the gentleman got to education. We heard 9 or 10 minutes 
about this corporate welfare energy bill, which is not going anywhere, 
and it is the reason that I don't think there will be any Democrats 
supporting this rule. But, yes, in this rule is also a wonderful 
education bill that we are very excited about, and I think we have many 
Democrats who will want to tell you about it here today. It is exciting 
to reach this point.
  I share the frustration of teachers, of parents, of students across 
the country with No Child Left Behind. I was on the State Board of 
Education in Colorado from 2001 to 2007 when we implemented No Child 
Left Behind. We saw many of the flaws at that time.
  We knew the fallacy of the formula for adequate yearly progress, and 
it was set up in such a way that all schools would eventually fail. We 
saw the rigid structure that could even inhibit State and district 
innovation.

                              {time}  1300

  I am proud to say today that the bill under this rule is a major step 
forward. For those who are thinking of opposing

[[Page 19206]]

it, realize that, in opposing it, you are ensuring that No Child Left 
Behind will continue exactly as it is.
  There is never a perfect alternative. I am sure, if each of us had 
the opportunity to write our own education bill, we would have 435 
different bills.
  What we have before us is a good, realistic compromise that can 
replace No Child Left Behind with a new Federal education law. It is 
something that is long overdue for the kids of this country, something 
that will be a boost in morale to teachers and educators in this 
country, and something that will encourage innovation at the State and 
district level. I will talk about some of those provisions that do just 
that.
  Just a few weeks ago I met with some teachers and students at Rocky 
Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado. They expressed their 
frustration with what has become everyday challenges in K-12 schools 
and how detached our No Child Left Behind law from 15 years ago is with 
the realities of education today.
  Teachers are spending less time teaching and more time administering 
high-stakes test or teaching of the test. Students are spending less 
time learning. As a result, schools have less time to focus on teaching 
real skills that students need to be ready for college or to be ready 
for careers in technical education after high school.
  Unfortunately, schools across my district and the country have been 
experiencing the same frustrations as the teachers and students at 
Rocky Mountain High who I met with a couple weeks ago.
  These frustrations are in many ways the result of the outdated 
education law, No Child Left Behind, which passed in 2001, which was 
well intentioned, but imposed a one-size-fits-all accountability 
system, a flawed one at that, on a diverse set of States and districts 
across our country.
  That is why I am so excited to be here on the floor of the House with 
the opportunity to speak about the new conference report, the new 
bipartisan, bicameral ESEA Reauthorization, the Every Student Succeeds 
Act, which passed 39-1 in our conference committee.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me and 
the other conferees in replacing No Child Left Behind with Every 
Student Succeeds Act.
  The Every Student Succeeds Act is the result of years of work by both 
Chambers. Former Ranking Member and former Chair George Miller, former 
Ranking Member and Chair Buck McKeon, current Chair Mr. Kline, and Mr. 
Scott have worked tirelessly, along with their staffs, over years to be 
able to put together something that both Democrats and Republicans can 
feel good about. Because guess what. We both care about kids. We both 
care about education. It is not a partisan issue.
  Now, we might have our differences about how to improve our schools. 
Let's put all those good ideas on the table. And they were. And they 
were voiced. We were able to build and improve deeply upon the highly 
flawed first version of this bill that the House passed, which would 
have taken Federal dollars away from the poorest schools and given it 
to wealthier schools.
  The House-passed bill would have completely failed students with 
disabilities by allowing unlimited students to have no accountability 
by classifying them as students with disabilities for alternative 
assessments, sweeping under the rug the tremendous amount of progress 
that students with disabilities have made since No Child Left Behind.
  The first version of the bill didn't establish any accountability for 
graduation or proficiency rates or any parameters for interventions to 
ensure that we could improve struggling schools.
  Now, when the Every Student Succeeds Act finally passed the House, it 
barely passed. It passed in a purely partisan manner. No Democrats 
supported the bill, and many Republicans didn't support the bill.
  Now, the silver lining of that is that it allowed the process to move 
forward. I am proud to say, after months of hard work by the staff and 
the chair and ranking member, the conference committee has succeeded in 
reporting out a bill that I believe is better than the Senate bill, 
better than the House bill, and certainly better than No Child Left 
Behind.
  When the conferees met, several Members offered thoughtful amendments 
that built upon and improved the conference framework even more. For 
example, Mr. Messer offered an amendment that would allow funds to be 
used to educate teachers about best practices for student data privacy.
  I offered a successful amendment that increases dual and concurrent 
enrollment opportunities for English language learners, something near 
and dear to my heart as the founder of the New America School charter 
school network.
  The conference committee took the framework and turned it into a 
robust bill that replaces No Child Left Behind with a system that works 
better for students, for educators, for families, and for schools.
  When ESEA was first passed in 1965, first and foremost, it was seen 
properly as a critical piece of civil rights legislation. For the first 
time, the Federal Government was making a commitment that every child, 
regardless of race, background, or ZIP Code, deserved a great education 
to prepare them for success.
  Any reauthorization of ESEA needs to uphold that same commitment to 
civil rights that was established in 1965. While the Every Student 
Succeeds Act isn't perfect, I believe that it upholds that commitment 
to civil rights that is such an important role for the Federal 
Government to play.
  Most importantly, the Every Student Succeeds Act includes strong 
accountability provisions that ensure that underimproving schools are 
identified and improved.
  Now, title I in Every Student Succeeds Act has come a long way from 
the original House bill. The number of Members in the House, including 
those in the new Democratic coalition and the Tri-Caucus, demanded 
stronger accountability provisions in the conference report. I am very 
happy to see that the conference report has delivered.
  Specifically, the Every Student Succeeds Act maintains annual 
statewide assessments, which gives States, districts, teachers, and 
parents valuable information about how students are performing and the 
tools they need to improve student performance. This data will be 
broken down by subgroup, by race, by socioeconomic status, to ensure 
that no students are swept under the rug.
  This bill includes a clear framework for identifying consistently 
low-performing schools and provides resources and ensures that States 
intervene to improve them. It fully maintains our promise to parents of 
students with disabilities, the promise that schools will be 
accountable to ensure that their child is learning and that the unique 
learning needs of their children are met.
  To be clear, these requirements are not the same top-down, one-size-
fits-all accountability provisions of No Child Left Behind. The one-
size-fits-all formula of adequate yearly progress is rightfully gone. 
The accountability provisions in Every Student Succeeds Act creates a 
framework for States as they create their own meaningful accountability 
plans.
  This means that States can be flexible and innovative to create 
specific policies that work for them. It is a challenge to States to 
rise to the occasion in meeting the learning needs of all students 
while maintaining those Federal rails to ensure that no child is left 
out.
  This bill provides additional flexibility around testing by allowing 
high-quality, Federally recognized tests to also meet the annual 
testing requirements in high school. In my district, high schoolers 
take the Colorado State test, the ACT, and, if necessary, AP or IB 
exams. That is a lot of testing in the final years of high school.
  This new flexibility would mean that a pending application that 
Colorado has for the ACT to stand in place of the Colorado State test 
would be specifically allowed in statute under this bill,

[[Page 19207]]

and I couldn't be more proud of that provision.
  This bill also maintains strong support for high-quality charter 
schools, something that I have made a hallmark of my time here in 
Congress and have been a coauthor of bills that have passed this body 
overwhelmingly. That charter school language is reflected in this bill.
  The language would improve charter school access and service for all 
students, give new and innovative charter schools those tools they need 
to meet their goal of serving at-risk and diverse students that ensure 
that our limited Federal investment supports the replication and 
expansion of high-quality, innovative charter schools.
  Before I came to Congress, I founded two public charter school 
networks. I know the freedom to innovate and the flexibility to pursue 
a unique mission within public education can help charter schools 
succeed at the highest levels.
  This bill also contains a commitment to education technology and 
innovation. The Investing in Innovation program has also been one of my 
top priorities in this bill.
  In Colorado, the St. Vrain Valley School District, which I represent 
a good portion of, received a $3.6 million innovation grant to expand 
programs for at-risk kids in seven schools.
  Because of that grant, St. Vrain was able to extend the school year 
at four elementary schools that serve at-risk kids, target math 
students at risk of failing at two middle schools that implement the 
STEM Academy at Skyline High School. I couldn't be more proud of this 
provision.
  Now, this rule also has a corporate welfare giveaway to the oil and 
gas industry. Thankfully, they are two separate votes. So my colleagues 
can vote against corporate welfare for the oil and gas industry, one of 
the most profitable industries on the face of the planet, and vote for 
kids.
  I do encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule, which has the 
oil and gas corporate welfare bill. If it simply was a straight-up vote 
on ESEA, I think my Democratic colleagues would join me in supporting 
the rule. Unfortunately, it is not.
  They stuck another bill in there that is an enormous multibillion-
dollar giveaway to the most profitable industry on the face of the 
planet, trying to preserve the fossil fuel industry rather than find a 
pathway forward to transition toward a lower carbon emission future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a valuable senior member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Dr. Burgess, for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a child, my family's home didn't have electricity or 
running water. My parents, while dedicated and hardworking, were poor, 
with little formal education.
  Fortunately, I was pushed by the right people, teachers and 
administrators, who wouldn't let me settle for less than my best. In 
the mountains of North Carolina, I learned firsthand the power of 
education and its vital role in the success of individual Americans.
  Unfortunately, today's K-12 education system is failing our students. 
Decades of Washington's counterproductive mandates and the No Child 
Left Behind law have resulted in stagnant student achievement, 
disappointing graduation rates, and high school graduates entering 
college and the workforce without the knowledge and resources they need 
to succeed.
  Parents and education leaders have lost much of their decisionmaking 
authority to Washington bureaucrats, and the Secretary of Education has 
bullied States into adopting the Obama administration's pet policies.
  The rule we are debating now would provide for consideration of a 
conference committee agreement, the Every Student Succeeds Act, 
reauthorizing and reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
that would allow Congress finally to replace the No Child Left Behind.
  As a grandmother, educator, and former school board member, I know 
students are best served when teachers, parents, and administrators are 
the driving force behind improving education. This agreement does just 
that by reducing the Federal footprint in the Nation's classrooms and 
restoring control to the people who know their students best.
  The compromise Every Student Succeeds Act gets Washington out of the 
business of running schools. It protects State and local autonomy by 
prohibiting the Secretary of Education from coercing States into 
adopting Common Core or punishing them for abandoning it.
  It also would place unprecedented restrictions on the authority of 
the Secretary of Education, preventing the Secretary from imposing new 
requirements on States and school districts through executive fiat, as 
President Obama's Department of Education has done repeatedly over the 
past 3 years.
  The proposal eliminates the burdensome one-size-fits-all 
accountability system that has done more to tie up States and school 
districts in red tape than to support local efforts to educate 
children. It also reduces the size of the Federal education bureaucracy 
by eliminating ineffective and duplicative Federal programs and 
requiring the Secretary of Education to reduce the Department's 
workforce accordingly.
  If Congress were to fail to act, States would be forced to choose 
between the fundamentally flawed policies of No Child Left Behind, 
which double down on Federal programs, mandates, and spending, and the 
Obama administration's controversial temporary conditional waiver 
scheme, which has imposed the administration's preferred policies and 
heightened the level of uncertainty shared by States and school 
districts. America's students deserve better.
  That is why I am so pleased today's agreement gives States a better 
chance to succeed by getting Washington out of their way. Our work has 
been validated by The Wall Street Journal, which stated that the bill 
would represent the largest devolution of Federal control to the States 
in a quarter century. It is far better than the status quo that would 
continue if nothing passes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. By reversing No Child Left Behind, one-size-fits-all 
micromanagement of classrooms, Congress is giving parents, teachers, 
and local education leaders the tools they need to repair a broken 
education system and help all children reach their potential. It is 
time to get Washington out of the way.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
conference committee agreement, the Every Student Succeeds Act.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding 
and for all of the work that he has put in on an important and 
necessary advancement in our education system.
  As he mentioned, the rule we are debating today also incorporates a 
rule for an energy bill that I wanted to address today because nowhere 
is the need for a comprehensive energy policy more critical than in my 
home State of Massachusetts and the entire region of New England.
  With recent announced closures of two plants in our region, one coal 
and one nuclear, we are facing the loss of over 2,000 megawatts of an 
already antiquated, already overtaxed electric grid. That loss of 
capacity is already causing the bills of our consumers to skyrocket 
through a quadrupling of our capacity rates, from $1 billion to over $4 
billion.
  Those closures and subsequent rate increases underscore our need for 
a roadmap that puts us on a path toward renewable energy while 
balancing the reliability and affordability.

[[Page 19208]]



                              {time}  1315

  The bill before us today does exactly the opposite. It reverses 
course and renews our investment in outdated energy resources while 
putting up roadblocks that will halt the innovation our energy 
infrastructure so desperately needs.
  In particular, I am very concerned with section 1110 of the bill, 
which would require regional grid operators to conduct a reliability 
analysis each time a rate change is filed with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission.
  Unfortunately, reliability comes at a cost, and the analysis required 
by section 1110 fails to even consider its impact on ratepayers. It 
ignores the concerns that I hear across my district every single day. 
Rate increases mean families can't save, businesses can't grow, local 
towns can't plan for the future.
  That is why I introduced an amendment which would simply add ``at the 
lowest possible cost'' to the reliability analysis in section 1110. 
Unfortunately, it was not made in order. It was a simple amendment that 
would have given much-needed direction and flexibility to each regional 
operator to determine what its reliability needs are and how much it is 
going to cost local ratepayers.
  The reliability analysis is a clear benefit to fuel types that can be 
stored and ignores the realities and benefits of other sources of 
energy, including renewables. The criteria required in this analysis 
fails to consider regional disparities, such as natural gas resources, 
local policies, and infrastructure.
  If the majority is going to insist on a reliability analysis, at the 
very least we should consider the impact the analysis would have on 
energy costs to our constituents.
  To say I am disappointed about what this bill has become would be a 
tremendous understatement. I hope today's vote will send a signal to 
the majority that this version does not have a viable pathway forward 
and that our Caucus remains committed to working with them on a bill 
that does.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  Mr. BYRNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Alabama State school board, 
former chancellor of postsecondary education for the State of Alabama, 
and as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am 
proud to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  For too long, our Nation's education system has failed under a heavy, 
top-down system of mandates and requirements set by Washington 
bureaucrats and special interest groups.
  The Every Student Succeeds Act changes that by getting Washington out 
of the way and empowering our local teachers, principals, and 
administrators. This legislation achieves these goals by reducing the 
Federal Government's role in K-12 education and restoring control over 
education back to the States and local school districts, where it 
belongs.
  The Wall Street Journal editorial board calls this legislation the 
largest devolution of Federal control to the States in a quarter-
century. National Journal notes that the bill marks a rollback of 
Federal power, while Politico points out that the bill cuts down on the 
number of education programs.
  I hear concerns often from my constituents in southwest Alabama about 
the Common Core standards. Well, this bill expressly prohibits the 
Secretary of Education from influencing or coercing States into 
adopting Common Core. This bill makes clear that it is solely a State's 
responsibility to set academic standards and pick assessments.
  These restrictions on the Federal Secretary of Education are 
unprecedented and will end the Secretary's ability to influence 
education policy through executive fiat and conditional waivers.
  Some may wonder what the alternative is to this legislation, so let 
me tell you.
  Without this bill, we will continue to allow the Obama administration 
and the Federal Government to dictate education policy to the States.
  Without this bill, the Secretary of Education will continue to use 
Federal grants and money to coerce States into adopting certain 
academic standards, like Common Core.
  Without this bill, the Federal Department of Education will continue 
to operate more than 80 programs which are ineffective, duplicative, 
and unnecessary.
  Without this bill, teachers will continue to have their hands tied by 
policies and assessments put forward by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  Washington has no business telling our States and local school 
districts how to best run their schools. So let's pass the Every 
Student Succeeds Act. Let's get Washington out of the way, and let's 
empower our local teachers, parents, and students.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the Every 
Student Succeeds Act.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the 
ranking member's intellect and integrity, as well as the chairman, in 
working through this rule.
  But it is simply disgraceful that while the President of the United 
States, our President, was in Paris this week to unite the world 
against the growing threat of climate change, this House chose to take 
up this particular legislation that would undermine the transition to 
cleaner power sources.
  These irresponsible bills put the American people at risk by exposing 
them to the dangers of carbon pollution, further exacerbating the 
negative impacts of climate change and putting our natural resources in 
jeopardy.
  While some of my friends choose to deny solid scientific evidence, 
more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies are in agreement: 
Climate change is real, and humans are largely responsible by releasing 
large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the 
atmosphere from burning fossil fuels to produce energy.
  But this is the most embarrassing part for our country: that this 
House is ignoring the scientific and national security community, which 
has long recognized the national security threat climate change poses 
for future generations.
  The longer term consequences of failing to act to address climate 
change may add further instability in regions that are already 
teetering on the edge of crisis. This could impair future access to 
food and water, damage infrastructure or interrupt commercial activity, 
and increase competition and tension between countries vying for 
limited resources.
  Now, as this body chooses to ignore our military leaders, we are 
faced with a choice. We can reject the continued calls to pull fossil 
fuels from the ground, or we can put our heads in the sand and pretend 
everything is fine, hunky-dory.
  While I may not be a scientist or a military expert, I don't think it 
is difficult to walk and chew gum at the same time. We can listen to 
the experts by investing our time and efforts in both short-term and 
long-term policies to keep the public safe.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule 
and in support of both bills that this rule will bring to the floor.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I find 
myself in very strong agreement with him on every point that he raised 
in his outstanding opening statement.
  In regard to the energy efficiency bill, Mr. Speaker, unemployment is 
a serious problem in this country, but we have much more 
underemployment. We have ended up with the best educated waiters and 
waitresses in the world, as many thousands of college graduates can't 
find good jobs.
  Our environmental rules and regulations and red tape have caused 
several million good jobs to go to other countries over the last 40 or 
50 years. We need more good jobs in this country, Mr. Speaker, and this 
energy bill will

[[Page 19209]]

help reduce this movement of jobs to other countries.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I rise primarily today to speak in favor of the 
Every Student Succeeds legislation.
  In 2001, I was one of just 45 Members of the House who voted against 
the No Child Left Behind Federal education law. Just 10 of those 45 
remain in the House today: Republican Congressmen Sam Johnson, Walter 
Jones, Joe Pitts, Dana Rohrabacher, Jim Sensenbrenner, Pete Sessions, 
and myself; and Democrats John Conyers, Bobby Scott, and Maxine Waters.
  This turned out to be one of the most popular votes I ever cast, 
especially with teachers.
  I have spoken well over a thousand times in schools through the 
years, and I voted against the bill in 2001 because I felt the 
teachers, principals, and parents in east Tennessee had enough common 
sense and intelligence to run their own schools and classrooms and 
didn't need Washington bureaucrats telling them what to do.
  The No Child Left Behind law was a great overreaction to failed 
schools in some of our Nation's biggest cities, and it needs to be 
replaced. Today, I rise in support of the Every Student Succeeds Act so 
we can leave behind the No Child Left Behind law.
  As a previous speaker mentioned, the Wall Street Journal on Monday 
published an editorial calling this bill ``a bipartisan compromise'' 
that would be ``the largest devolution of Federal control . . . in a 
quarter-century.''
  The paper pointed out that ``it's far better than the status quo 
which would continue if nothing passes,'' and described the bill as ``a 
rare opportunity for real reform.''
  This bill should please many conservatives because it does away with 
the Common Core mandate.
  This legislation is an example of great work by my own Senator, 
constituent, and friend, Senator Lamar Alexander. This bill is just one 
of many reasons why Senator Alexander is one of the most respected 
Members of the other body, and I commend him for his efforts to improve 
our Nation's schools.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support these two bills that this rule 
brings to the floor.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, this bill is missing a great opportunity 
where we have common ground on energy efficiency. Mr. Upton and Mr. 
Whitfield are great chairmen of the subcommittee and the standing 
committee and made an honest effort to try to include all of the 
possible things that we could do on energy efficiency, but we came up 
short.
  The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy--and that is 
made up of a lot of private sector companies that are trying to meet 
the demand that their consumers, corporate consumers, and individuals 
have to get more bang for their energy dollar by using less and saving 
more--has said that this bill will not reduce energy consumption in the 
United States. It will increase it, at a cost of about $20 billion 
through 2040.
  Why are we doing that? Energy efficiency is the area where we agree. 
There is a lot of contentious debate about climate change; we are not 
going to resolve that today. But we have bipartisan agreement that we 
should use less energy. It is good for our customers, and it is good 
for the economy, and it is good for the environment. We came up short.
  Many of the costs in energy efficiency could be saved with building 
codes language, which Mr. McKinley, an engineer on the Republican side, 
introduced along with me. That is not in this bill.
  There was a number of other bipartisan amendments that could have 
been offered. One by Mr. Kinzinger, the Smart Building Acceleration 
Act, should be in the bill. One by Mr. Reed, the Smart Manufacturing 
Leadership Act, should be in the bill.
  So energy efficiency, that is the place we can work together, and it 
is the place where we save money by using less energy and improving our 
economy and improving the environment as well.
  The second area is the renewable fuel standards.
  We have a huge debate in this Congress. If you are a corn farmer and 
you are from that district, the renewable fuel standards work for you 
because it increases what you get for producing corn.
  Everywhere else, you are getting hammered. The cost to farmers who 
have to pay grain bills is higher. The cost to consumers who have to 
buy food is higher. The cost to small engine owners who have to get 
more repairs is higher. And it is bad for the environment.
  That has been determined, I think, to be a well-intended flop.
  Many of us had amendments that were going to let this Congress vote 
on the renewable fuel standard. It was denied by the Committee on Rules 
because the Congressional Budget Office has said that if we actually 
passed an amendment eliminating the renewable fuel standards, drivers 
of pickup trucks and cars would get higher gas mileage, and, therefore, 
there would be less revenue in the transportation bill from the gas 
tax, and we might have to pay more to farmers as a subsidy.
  Now, what is going on here when we can't take a vote on a proposal 
that would have the effect of saving the driving public money on gas?
  You know, I am willing to take that vote. I am willing to take the 
heat for saving drivers in this country money because they can get 
better mileage without ethanol in the fuel.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a real effort here on the committee to 
make progress. My goal is that we keep at it and try to improve this 
bill as it goes along the legislative path.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, but 
I would like to speak on some of the positive benefits I see in the 
education portion of this bill coming down the pike later on today.
  First and foremost, I think we are learning a lot, Mr. Speaker, about 
what it really means to prepare young kids for an education today. And 
I believe the brain science that is unfolding in our country and the 
world is helping us better understand exactly how young minds work and 
how our own brains work. I think it is smart for us to send more power 
back to the local districts and then support programming that can help 
kids learn better.
  A component of this bill, the Student Support and Academic Enrichment 
grant program, allows for helping to educate well-rounded kids, allows 
us to focus on well-rounded education, focus on safe and healthy kids, 
and gives local school districts an opportunity to invest in programs 
like the social and emotional learning programs that are going on 
around this country.
  It is an interesting study. A meta-analysis done of about 213 
programs with 270,000 kids participating in social and emotional 
learning programs saw an 11 percentile point increase in test scores. 
That closes the achievement gap. We have seen a 10 percent increase in 
prosocial behavior, a 10 percent decrease in antisocial behavior, and a 
20 percent swing in the behavior of the kids.
  We have great programs, like the MindUP program that Goldie Hawn 
started, having a tremendous impact around the country.
  In my own congressional district, in Warren City Schools, we have the 
Inner Resilience Social and Emotional Learning program. In one of our 
schools, we have seen a 60 percent reduction in out-of-school 
suspensions. That is a 60 percent reduction.
  And these programs are having significant benefits. If you look at 
the qualities that a young person needs, I believe this bill helps us 
get back to redefining what the common core is. In my estimation, the 
common core is: Are we teaching kids mental discipline? the ability to 
be aware? the ability to be focused? the ability to cultivate one of 
the key components to

[[Page 19210]]

a successful life, and that is the ability to regulate your own 
emotional state?
  This comes well before science, technology, engineering, and math. 
Teaching these key, fundamental characteristics--mental discipline, 
physical discipline, focus, concentration, self-regulation--are key 
components before you even get to the academic side of things.
  The other component in here is creating healthy schools. This gets 
into the school lunches. This gets into the food that these kids eat. 
If the student is not getting healthy foods, they are not going to be 
able to concentrate, they are not going to be able to have a high 
energy level, they are not going to be able to do well academically.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. To me, self-regulation, awareness, attention, 
healthy foods, and healthy environment are the building blocks before 
we even get to the academic component of what happens in the classroom.
  I want to thank the committees and the conference committee for 
putting this together and just recognize that I believe there is a new 
way of educating our kids emerging here. There is a new common core 
developing, and that is the mental discipline and the physical health 
of our young people.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would 
close a loophole allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy guns. 
This bill would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the 
terrorist watch list.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we have before us today an education bill 
that is a vast improvement over the status quo. I am proud to say it is 
a result of the work product between Democrats and Republicans working 
together to finally replace an outdated educational law with one that 
makes a lot more sense.
  It maintains the original goal of ESEA from 1965--that is, to protect 
the civil rights of all Americans, to ensure that no school district 
can sweep under the rug or deny a quality education to any student 
because of their ethnicity or race or income status--and it allows 
States and districts the flexibility to meet those needs. It allows 
States and districts the flexibility to do something, but not the 
flexibility to do nothing. That is the fine line that Democrats and 
Republicans have worked together to seek and have accomplished with 
this bill.
  Beginning in 2011, the Department of Education embarked on an 
unprecedented process of granting annual ESEA waivers to States and 
some districts. Now, you have heard that waiver process blasted from 
the other side. Absent that waiver process, under the formula of 
adequate yearly progress, nearly every State and district would have 
been labeled a failure. So I hope that my colleagues are grateful for a 
waiver process that has succeeded in granting waivers not only to my 
home State of Colorado, but to most States and districts across the 
country.
  Now, of course, the waiver process opened up a Pandora's box. We can 
all agree it gave too much power to a single Federal agency. Not 
knowing who the next President is going to be, that should be something 
that Democrats and Republicans are concerned about.
  While President Obama and Secretary Duncan's use of the waiver 
process allowed States to get out from under a flawed law, we can't 
necessarily count on the next President to be as generous with the 
waiver process in the No Child Left Behind, which is why it is 
completely appropriate and why you see so many Democrats, Republicans, 
educators, and school board members lining up to say: You know what? We 
need better statutory guidance, and we need to eliminate the one flawed 
Federal measurement of adequate yearly progress and replace it with an 
accountability system that works at the State and district level and 
maintains the Federal commitment to civil rights for all students.
  Now, I personally agree with some of the reforms that resulted from 
the ESEA waivers, but a complex annual waiver process is at the whim of 
whoever the chief executive is at a certain time. It is not sound 
policy over time to improve our public schools.
  I am proud to say this bill, ESEA, has broad support from a diverse 
coalition of stakeholders. It has support from superintendents, 
teachers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the 
National Center for Learning Disabilities, the National Council of La 
Raza, Third Way, the STEM Education Coalition, the National Governors 
Association, and many others who are very well-regarded organizations 
that support the bill. And just over the past few days, I have heard 
from constituents who support the Every Student Succeeds Act.
  I have spent most of my public career in education. I believe that 
education is the single most powerful tool for creating opportunity, 
for ending poverty, for lifting people into the middle class and 
beyond.
  I have served as chairman of the State Board of Education of 
Colorado. I founded two charter schools. I served as superintendent of 
a charter school, the New America School. During my time in Congress, I 
have sat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. And on a 
personal note, I have a preschool-age son.
  Nothing could be more important for the future of our country than 
improving our public schools. Education is important to me, just as it 
is important to thousands of families in my district and parents 
everywhere. The Every Student Succeeds Act is a good bill that will 
move our education system forward.
  I am proud to support the conference report, though, again, I am 
opposed to the rule and H.R. 8, the corporate welfare for the oil and 
gas industry bill, which was, unfortunately, put under the same rule as 
an education bill that I think many of us can agree on.
  I want to talk about some of the specific language around charter 
schools that I worked hard to include in this bill.
  I am proud to say that this version of the bill maintains strong 
Federal support for new and innovative charter schools as well as 
allowing for the replication and expansion of public charter school 
models that we know work for at-risk kids.
  It is one of the great things about education. For every challenge we 
face, for every problem we see in public education, we also see an 
example of what works: a great teacher in a classroom defying the odds 
by helping at-risk students achieve; a great school; a great principal; 
a great site leader who has turned around a low-performing school, 
improved graduation rates, and made sure that more kids have access to 
college.
  These stories are a reality in districts like Denver Public Schools, 
Jefferson County Public Schools, Boulder Valley School District, Poudre 
School District; and in districts across the country, there are 
examples of what works and what doesn't work.
  The truth is that the Federal Government and States need to ensure 
that districts change what doesn't work, and one of the best ways to do 
that is to take proven models of success and expand and replicate them. 
One of those models that can work is public charter schools.
  I am proud to say the public charter schools have been embraced in my 
home State of Colorado. Denver Public Schools, which serves a high 
percentage of at-risk kids, has over 20 percent of their children 
choosing to attend public charter schools. Our State also enjoys strong 
school choice across all public schools and even between districts.
  This bill improves upon the charter school language by allowing the 
grants

[[Page 19211]]

to be used for expanding and replicating successful models and upping 
the bar on authorizing practices and ensuring that quality public 
charter schools are meeting the needs of learners across the country.
  Many of these charter schools wouldn't get off the ground without 
these Federal startup grants because they don't receive any public 
funds or State funds--in my home State of Colorado, until June of the 
year they open; in other States, it might be a little bit different. 
But generally speaking, all of those planning costs and operating costs 
for that year, until they open, are not compensated because they have 
no student enrollment at that point.
  Believe me, it takes money to get public charter schools off the 
ground. They raise money from philanthropy. Some school districts who 
want more public charter schools help seed them, too. And the Federal 
investment, along with that, will help ensure that these great 
educators and great ideas have a chance to actually start a public 
charter school that meets a real learning need in the community.
  I couldn't be more proud that those priorities of the All-STAR Act 
and the charter school bill passed overwhelmingly by this body in two 
different legislative sessions are reflected in this final bill.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous 
question, to vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote ``yes'' on the education 
bill, and to vote ``no'' on the corporate welfare for the oil and gas 
industry bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 11\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for further consideration of two 
important bills affecting the future of this country: the country's 
energy future and the future of education. They are important bills.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote 
``yes'' on the rule, and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bills.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support to S. 1177, which is 
a sea change that moves the nation's education system away from ``No 
Child Left Behind.''
  I thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and all the members of 
the House and Senate Conference Committee for their work in bringing 
the Every Child Succeeds Act.
  As the founding member and Chair of the Congressional Children's 
Caucus, I am in support of this bill because it places the education of 
our nation's children first.
  I am pleased that the Jackson Lee Amendment offered during the House 
consideration of this bill intended to fight bullying in education 
settings is included in S. 1177.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment supports accountability-based programs and 
activities that are designed to enhance school safety, which may 
include research-based bullying prevention, cyberbullying prevention, 
and disruption of recruitment activity by groups or individuals 
involved in violent extremism, and gang prevention programs as well as 
intervention programs regarding bullying.
  Statistics on Bully:
  Consider the daily reality for too many of our children who are 
threatened and hurt daily and will not tell adults about their pain or 
shame: 1 in 7 Students in Grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of 
bullying. 90 percent of 4th to 8th Grade Students report being victims 
of bullying of some type. 56 percent of students have personally 
witnessed some type of bullying at school. 71 percent of students 
report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school. 15 percent 
of all students who don't show up for school reported being out of fear 
of being bullied while at school. 1 out of 20 students has seen a 
student with a gun at school. 282,000 students are physically attacked 
in secondary schools each month.
  Consequences of bullying: 15 percent of all school absenteeism is 
directly related to fears of being bullied at school. According to 
bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school 
does so because of repeated bullying. Suicides linked to bullying are 
the saddest statistic.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment also addresses growing concerns regarding 
violent extremism and student social media use.
  As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, as well as a Senior 
Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I believe that we must 
address emerging threats where they are, and do so as early as 
possible.
  The Every Student Succeeds Act reflects the core principles for what 
today's children need to be prepared to succeed.
  The bill includes support for students and schools in state 
accountability plans to create an opportunity for great transparency in 
making sure the classroom experiences of students will prepare them for 
higher education or employment opportunities by: (1.) reducing the 
amount of standardized testing in schools and decoupling high-stakes 
decision making and statewide standardized tests; and, (2.) ensuring 
that educators' voices are part of decision making at the federal, 
state and local levels.
  This year marks the 50th anniversary of Congress passing the landmark 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
  It is appropriate that Congress is taking this important bipartisan 
step in education reform that is drawing broad support from leading 
organizations, including the following: (1.) National Education 
Association; (2.) Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; (3.) National 
Council of La Raza; (4.) Teach for America; (5.) U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce; and (6.) Business Roundtable.
  The bill before the House will move the nation toward an education 
policy built for success from the classrooms to the workplace.
  In 2011, the number of children enrolled in elementary, middle 
schools and high schools nationally is 54,876,000, which included 
38,716,000 in elementary schools and 16,160,000 in high schools.
  Access to a great education is the best medicine for our nation's 
disparities in our economic system and social justice challenges.
  A major reason for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was the 
unanimous, landmark ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Brown 
v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court held that education 
``is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.''
  A great education lifts all aspirations and opens doors of 
opportunity for every student in communities across the nation.
  Today lifelong learning is an imperative for workers to remain 
current and viable in the employment market place.
  A great education today yield benefits far into the future as it 
produces inventors, thinkers, artists, and leaders.
  It is well past time to correct flaws in the ``No Child Left Behind'' 
law and focus on facilitating this growth and laying the foundation for 
student success.
  According to a 2011 report by the Brookings Institution's 
Metropolitan Policy Program, ``The Hidden STEM Economy,'' 26 million 
jobs, or 20 percent of all occupations, required knowledge in one or 
more STEM areas.
  The same report stressed that fully half of all STEM jobs available 
to workers without a 4 year degree and these jobs pay on average 
$53,000 a year, which is 10 percent higher than jobs with similar 
education requirements.
  The economy is changing rapidly and our education system needs the 
guidance and support provided by H.R. 1177.
  I urge all members to join with me in voting in support of H.R. 1177.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 542 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on

[[Page 19212]]

     the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, 
     immediately after the third daily order of business under 
     clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole 
     for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives (6th edition, page 
     135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on the adoption of the resolution, if 
ordered, and the motion to instruct on H.R. 644.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 177, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 653]

                               YEAS--243

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

                               NAYS--177

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bucshon
     Cleaver
     Cuellar
     Huffman
     Meeks
     Nadler
     Payne

[[Page 19213]]


     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Speier
     Takai
     Webster (FL)
     Williams

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. ASHFORD changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 181, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 654]

                               AYES--240

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

                               NOES--181

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Cuellar
     Marchant
     McCollum
     Meeks
     Payne
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Takai
     Webster (FL)
     Williams

                              {time}  1420

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

                          ____________________