Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congresswoman Bonamici's amendment, which I am also proud to cosponsor. When ESEA, or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was first passed in 1965, it truly was a landmark and important piece of civil rights legislation. It is written with the intent that every student-- no matter their race, their economic background, their ZIP Code-- deserves a great education in our country. Title I of ESEA gets at the heart of the civil rights spirit for providing additional funding for schools with significant populations of high-needs and at-risk students. Now, title I also provides important performance and equity parameters for States and districts and gives some direction about how States can comply with these requirements to support our most struggling schools. Of course, the text of the law doesn't do everything, which is why we rely on the protections that have been put in place through rule. The SCRUB Act would allow an unelected panel to carelessly do away with important civil rights protections and transparency, the opposite of the legislative intent in the ESEA. The Department of Education regularly goes through an extensive process for finalizing regulations, and to do away with these protections on a whim by an unelected, all-powerful panel may somehow score political points, but it is at the expense of students across our country. I strongly support Representative Bonamici's amendment that would exempt title I from this harmful bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Congresswoman Bonamici's amendment. Today, our country owes over $1.3 trillion in student debt. In Colorado, the average student loan borrower owes $26,000. Why would we want to risk abolishing consumer protections for our borrowers? These are very personal numbers. The stories I hear, the burden of student loan debt affects people's ability to own a home or buy a car. A recent report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that the number of student loan borrowers over the age of 60 has quadrupled. People haven't even paid off their loans as they enter retirement age. Now, the Obama administration did take important steps to protect and support student loan borrowers. They made it easier for them to pay back their loans and ensured they were treated fairly by student loan services. Rolling back these protections would have far-reaching negative effects for our borrowers. I strongly support Congresswoman Bonamici's amendment, exempting Federal protections that support consumer protections for student loan borrowers from the SCRUB Act. The last thing we need to scrub away is protections for people to take out student loans. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we are all deeply concerned over the reports from our intelligence community regarding foreign interference in our most recent election. When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation, H.R. 356, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which would create an independent commission to investigate the foreign interference in our 2016 election. This is not a partisan matter. Both Democrats and Republicans have called for this investigation and a full accounting for the American people. Frankly, the American people deserve to know what happened, and Congress has the responsibility to get to the bottom of it. 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.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, when I was back in my district earlier this year, again, I didn't have a single constituent raise issues over regulatory reform. I did have people ask if we can have a full accounting of foreign interference with our more recent election, and, if we defeat the previous question, that will give us an opportunity to do that. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I will also urge them to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying bills. Just so no one is here under any illusions, Republicans do currently control the House, and the Senate, and the White House. Frankly, they have the ability to set the agenda, and they could use that agenda to advance real reforms like infrastructure, or tax reform, or fixing our broken immigration system, repairing broken roads and bridges. Today, instead, we are debating something so obscure that I don't think the American people know what OIRA does or how to pronounce it; another bill that has to deal with whether regulations are seen and signed off on by the staffers in the White House; and two bills that don't do anything but undermine the separation of powers, undermine the authority of this institution, the United States Congress, and make it harder for public agencies to do the job that we have instructed them to do to keep the American people safe. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up H.R. 356, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, and oppose the underlying legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting with the Alaskan people, with the economic interests of Alaska, and with the taxpayers of America, who are stewards of this land, for better wildlife management practices, to stop killing puppies, and engage in inhumane trapping and hunting practices of bears.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we really should be calling this bill the ``Puppy Killing Act.'' This resolution would overturn a rule that prohibits some of the cruelest hunting practices on Federal lands in Alaska. Now, again, this is not on State land. This is on Federal land that Colorado taxpayers and taxpayers across the country pay for the maintenance of and that we, the people of the country, own. The Fish and Wildlife rule prohibits so-called predator control activities that Alaska has made legal in State law. As Mr. Huffman said, the Alaska Board of Game specifically voted to allow aerial gunning and snaring of bears. They have engaged in gassing of wolf pups in their dens. These are not theoretical matters. They are actual matters as to why this rule is so important and why I oppose it being overturned. If this bill passes, the activities that are prevented under this rule for refuges can actually occur. These cruel and inhumane methods that Alaska wishes to implement, including killing wolf pups and their mothers at or near their dens, killing brown bears with the use of steel-jawed traps, and scouting and shooting grizzly bears from planes and helicopters, are not only unsportsmanlike, but run counter to the directives of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Thirty-one scientists submitted their support for the Alaska National Refuge Act, noting that the best available science indicates that widespread elimination of bears, coyotes, and wolves will quite unlikely make ungulate herds magically reappear. So, again, the science is clear on this matter. There was another study by the 1997 National Academy of Sciences that found that Alaska's predator control system, including the assertion of killing wolves and bears, somehow makes other wildlife populations healthier is simply not supported by sound science. This blunt and unscientific and inhumane approach to managing apex predators and carnivores employed by the State of Alaska is actually counter to the law and the congressional mandate regarding the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which passed overwhelmingly in this body, says it requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to: Conserve Fish and Wildlife populations and their habitats in their natural diversity. How does it protect our carnivore species and the species they consume in their natural diversity if there is artificial and inhumane human intervention to kill puppies and target bears from aircraft? It is simply unscientific, inhumane, and wrong. In direct contrast to Federal law, Alaska has adopted regulations that require the killing of wolves and bears under so-called predation control efforts to artificially inflate game populations frequently above and beyond the carrying capacity of the land. The State currently authorizes extreme practices like aerial shooting of wolves or bears by State agency personnel, trapping of wolves by paid contractors, and using airplanes to hunt wolves and bears. Not only is this bill inhumane and counter to our stewardship of the National Wildlife Refuge, but it is also counterproductive for jobs in the economy of Alaska. Wildlife watching provides roughly five times more the revenue to the Alaskan economy than hunting or trapping. It turns out that the American people and tourists around the world would rather see these puppies and photograph them rather than shoot them and gas them. According to the Fish and Wildlife records, wildlife viewing activities in Alaska support over $2 billion in economic activity. Why is Congress spending time trying to allow puppy killing and cruel hunting methods to occur, instead of fair chase methods, especially when this actually undermines Alaska's economy and their ecology of Federal refuges? Why are we repealing this rule when, in fact, most Alaskans support it? The American people know there are more pressing issues facing the country than this rule. I urge Members to join me and vote ``no'' on the CRA and protecting puppies.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, (Ms. Judy Chu), the chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), who is a new member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), who is a new member of the Education and the Workforce Committee and is doing an excellent job so far.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the legal implications and the chaos that this resolution would create if it were passed. I want to share with you a brief story from a parent who has two sons with special needs and who depends on strong accountability for her son's success. What parents across this country who have kids in public schools want to see is a system that works for them. They are not so caught up in which rule is being passed by who and who is doing what. They want to make sure the learning needs of their child are met. Frankly, a strong accountability system and a reliable accountability system with parameters that are clear rather than a chaotic and unpredictable one goes a long way to reassuring parents across this country that the needs of their child are being met. Here is a brief story from a parent with two sons with special needs: My son Jacob is a freshman in high school. Today, he's a straight A student well on his way to a great future. But it wasn't always that way. He spent his early elementary school years lacking the supports he needed to be successful in the classroom. At the beginning of fourth grade, he was in a self- contained classroom, which supported his behavioral needs, but not his academic needs. We were given the choice to ``opt out'' of grade-level testing, but refused. It was the results of those tests that gave us the data we needed to see where he needed support and to see where he could excel academically. We all saw he was working at or above grade- level in many areas. It kept us accountable to planning his successful future. By the end of fourth grade, he was partially included in a general education classroom. By middle school, he was fully included in the general education classroom with minimal supports in place. Without accountability standards in place for students like Jacob, none of us--his parents, his teachers, and even Jacob himself--would have been able to track his upward trajectory. I hear stories like this from so many of my constituents, Mr. Speaker: kids with learning disabilities, kids who attend schools that have pervasive achievement gaps between higher- and lower-income students and students of color and White students. Frankly, the accountability system that we have had and the improvements that we built into it through the Every Student Succeeds Act and this rulemaking process are the prime civil rights safeguards that families across the country have so that they can, with confidence, know that the public schools are required to meet the learning needs of their child and that somebody is watching that, who will watch the watchers, and that their only recourse isn't just expensive litigation, which the repeal of this rule would lead to more of, but, frankly, is where the money is coming from and making sure that there is a degree of controls in place that the learning of the child is being met. Stories like Jacob's are the reason why so many organizations have voiced their opposition to H.J. Res. 57. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of organizations that have announced opposition. The following organizations have all voiced their opposition to House Joint Resolution 57: Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC); Congressional Black Caucus (CBC); Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC); Alliance for Excellent Education; Association of University Centers on Disabilities; Center for American Progress; Children's Defense Fund; Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities; Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Democrats for Education Reform; Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. Easterseals; The Education Trust; Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; League of United Latin American Citizens; Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF); NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities; National Center for Learning Disabilities; National Council of La Raza; National Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome Congress; National Indian Education Association. National Urban League; National Women's Law Center; New Leaders; PolicyLink; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Stand for Children; Teach For America; Teach Plus; The New Teacher Project (TNTP); The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; United Negro College Fund (UNCF).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution before us, which would overturn the accountability regulations in the Every Student Succeeds Act, our Nation's most important K-12 education law. These accountability guidelines promulgated by the Department are not only allowed under the Every Student Succeeds Act, but they are essentially required. This legislative body last session put language into the Every Student Succeeds Act calling upon the Department and the Secretary to clarify this. It is a very different perspective on what that legislative intent was. There are items in the Every Student Succeeds Act that we agreed-- Democrats and Republicans--the Secretary and the Department would be prohibited from promulgating rules regarding. For instance, one of those is the promulgation of rules in support of the Common Core curriculum. Democrats and Republicans agree that the Federal Government should not be setting curriculum. That is a matter for the States. We prohibit it, specifically, in language in ESSA. We prohibit the Federal Government from promulgating rules that require, in any way, shape, or form, the adoption of the common core standards at the State level. What is not prohibited is rules regarding State accountability systems. Quite to the contrary, it is important work. In fact, it is the core work under the Every Student Succeeds Act, that very core commitment to civil rights that so many Democrats and Republicans feel passionate about that is contained through these rules. When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act first passed in 1965, it was a critical piece of civil rights legislation, and it still is to this day. It was written with the intent that every student, no matter their race, background, ZIP Code, deserved a great education. And today, the Every Student Succeeds Act maintains that spirit. If it had some of the prohibition that my colleague on the other side of the aisle believes it has, but won't be able to cite specific statute that it has, Democrats wouldn't have supported that bill, and it wouldn't have passed with nearly every Democrat--if not every Democratic vote--in the House and the Senate. For months, States have been working diligently to write their own State plans to comply with the Every Student Succeeds Act. My home State of Colorado has undertaken an extensive process. I got to attend one of the stakeholder meetings as part of that process, gathering feedback from educators, and parents, and students to write a State plan that works for Colorado and meets the requirements of the new law and the rules that this CRA would undo. This resolution would undo all of that State-level work, all of the work that people in Colorado have done, that people in other States have done; create massive chaos and uncertainty in public education; and destroy the civil rights safeguards that Republicans and Democrats worked so diligently to put in place in the Every Student Succeeds Act. Not only would this CRA overturn the regulations, but it would prevent the Department of Education from looking at accountability again. It would tie the hands of the newly confirmed Secretary of Education, preventing her from improving or building upon the accountability measures that Congress, through the language of ESSA, asked the Department to take on. This regulation was written after the Department of Education received thousands of comments from stakeholders, including parents, teachers, school boards, and advocates. Without a rule, the approval of the State accountability plans would be entirely at the discretion of the new Secretary, Secretary DeVos--the exact type of scenario the Republicans wanted to avoid by rewriting ESSA, essentially arguing--and many Democrats agreed with the argument--that effectively it was arbitrary use of power that then-Secretary Duncan wielded, and then- Secretary King, to grant the necessary waivers under the No Child Left Behind Act by removing these rules that had been promulgated. Effectively, we would be back to where we started without criteria for approval or denial of State plans; without adequate safeguards for civil rights; and without the assurance that we can improve and build upon progress. How can we trust any Secretary--Duncan, King, DeVos, future Secretaries--to know what a good accountability plan and bad accountability plan look like? Why should our legislative body delegate that level of authority without rules and regulations that we derive and allow them to make an arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking process that could involve approving bad accountability plans, or failing to approve strong accountability plans? That should be a huge concern for parents, teachers, students, and the public system. You know what? Republicans were right, as were Democrats, when we argued that we needed criteria for the approval of accountability plans. And the answer is not to give blanket authority to any Secretary with regard to approval or denial of their plans, and that is what these rules do. And if they need to be improved and built upon, let's work with the new Secretary to do that. But by not only undoing those rules, but by actually prohibiting the Secretary from promulgating additional rules, it will give the Department of Education effective arbitrary veto over every State in our country and an unprecedented level of federalized control of our schools, which might be the real Republican agenda with this bill here today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS

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. 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 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.

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 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. 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 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

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. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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 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. 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. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of our international institutions that allow us to get along with one another; the WTO, the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, NAFTA, CAFTA, all of our great international institutions that allow us to amicably resolve our differences. Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker, with all the misbehavior and problems of the current occupant of the White House, what I am most worried about is this rise of nationalism. We have seen this play out before throughout our history. While no one is as proud to be as American as many of us who have the privilege to serve in this body, the world is more interconnected than ever before. And it is more important than ever before that Republicans and Democrats in this body show our commitment to resolving our legitimate disputes and differences amicably through the rule of international law and our international institutions, rather than resorting to violence and warfare. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to renew our commitment to pursuing peaceful, diplomatic ways of resolving our international disputes through international legal bodies.