Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would close the loophole that allows 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.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, a third of our Nation's major roads are rated as poor or mediocre, and one in four bridges is in need of significant repair or expansion, many of them dangerous, while 45 percent of Americans don't have access to public transit. Congestion on our roadways has gotten so bad that Americans are wasting an average of 8.4 billion hours--that is 8.4 billion hours less in productivity--and 4.5 billion gallons of gas over a decade while being stuck in traffic. The average commuters are wasting nearly $800 of their own money and 5 full days of their lives each year in traffic. In my district alone, population and congestion has far outpaced our ability to maintain our critical thoroughfares. If you have ever been to Colorado, you will know that there is one way up to our world-class ski resorts and ski areas and unparalleled 14,000-foot peaks from the Denver metro area. It is called highway 70. If you have ever taken it on a Friday evening or on a Sunday evening, you have probably sat in your car at a dead stop, waiting at times perhaps even for hours. If you have ever been to the largest city in my district, Fort Collins, home to one of our greatest universities, Colorado State University, you have probably found similar circumstances along highway 25 during rush hour. The expansion of highway 25 and the high-speed rail along highway 70 have been given completion dates of 60 years from now. That isn't good enough. Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder, Vail, Frisco, Breckenridge-- none of these tourism- and recreation-driven communities can survive without making improvements for 60 years. The future of these projects lies with a long-term, robustly funded surface transportation reauthorization. Our future depends upon our States' and municipalities' ability to rely on what level of Federal support they can expect to receive and what their Federal partnerships will look like year in and year out. By providing consistency in funding levels and a several-year commitment to critical infrastructure projects, as we do today in this conference report, we open up a future for major highway improvements like those needed with highways 25 and 70 in my district and with highways and roads across the entire Nation. While I have outlined the issues and misgivings I have with this bill--and I certainly agree with Mr. Ribble about the lack of courage this Congress has to actually pay for a bill and to instead devise clever gimmicks that only partially pay for the bill, including assuming that we are going to get twice the money per barrel for oil that the Federal Government owns and the actual market price would bear--I think that this bill, nevertheless, is a step forward over continued short-term reauthorizations, which I have been voting against the last several times they have come before us and which, I should point out, also generally include gimmicky ways of paying for it. So if this Congress, which it seems to have done, has chosen not to address the real issue of how to pay for something and has chosen to instead use gimmicks, it is still better to do that in a predictable manner rather than to come up with a new gimmick every 60 days--a gimmick of the month, if you will--which is what this Congress has been doing throughout this year. I thank my colleagues for the inclusion of my amendments in this bill, particularly an amendment to designate Highway 70 from Denver to Salt Lake City as a High Priority Corridor. That provision will open up funding sources and opportunities for a highway that has been a nightmare for residents, for tourists, and for freight truck drivers for decades, particularly during its busiest times. I appreciate the committee's desire to be transparent and receptive to ideas brought by Members who don't serve on the committee. I am hopeful that what happened here this week, as my colleague from Georgia started out by saying, not only with the surface transportation reauthorization but also with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is only a beginning--a beginning of big things, of good things, of hard compromises, of the success of regular order, of discussions between the House and the Senate that will hopefully bode well for future developments. I am hopeful that we can get back to work after a long hiatus of gridlock and grandstanding. I hope this is the first of many. I congratulate my colleagues for coming together on such a pivotal piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Today, I recognize the patriotism and volunteer service of Major Fredric Arnold, a World War II P-38 fighter pilot in the Army Air Corps. Mr. Arnold flew and survived 50 combat missions and was promoted to the rank of major at the age of 23. He received numerous medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal with nine oak leaf clusters. While assigned to the Office of Flying Safety, he wrote and illustrated the first ever flight training manuals for the P-38, P-47, P-51, and P-80 fighter aircraft, and he created educational air combat situation drawings for the P-38 Lightning, which saved the lives of inexperienced American pilots. Today, at age 93, Mr. Arnold lives in Boulder, Colorado, where he is creating a monumental bronze sculpture, funded by The Radiance Foundation, which depicts 12 life-sized fighter pilots who are engaged in a World War II flight briefing, in order to honor the 88,000 airmen who lost their lives during the war and to ensure future generations remember the sacrifices that were made to protect our freedom. This sculpture is entitled, ``Lest We Forget: The Mission,'' and it will be exhibited at the World War II Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana. I am proud to recognize Major Fredric Arnold for his service as a fighter pilot and for his personal commitment to honor and help us all remember the aviators who served this Nation during World War II. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I commend my colleagues on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who we will be hearing from shortly, for their diligence in developing a thoughtful, long-term, sustainably funded surface transportation compromise that really has many of the priorities that Republicans and Democrats brought to the table. As the gentleman from Georgia said, this is an example of what we call regular order of a conference committee. I want to inquire of the gentleman from Georgia, what was the vote on the conference committee on this final transportation bill? I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, you did even better than the education conference committee. We were 39-1. There was actually one person on that conference committee who didn't support it. What a great job that you and your colleagues did. The education conference committee was the first chance in 7\1/2\ years that I had to serve on a conference committee; my friend from Georgia, his first chance during his time in Congress to do it. And that is a procedural matter. When the American people hear, oh, conference committee, that sounds procedural. Yet another committee; what does that mean? But the product of these committees are substantial bills. Part of the problem here in this institution is that it is a bicameral legislature, and the House and the Senate don't talk to each other enough. The formal way they talk to one another is through a conference committee. What that means is there are Senators and Representatives on the same committee working on the same bill, rather than what happens too often around here where the House passes one bill and the Senate, if they pass a bill at all, passes a very different bill, and never the twain shall meet. Mr. Speaker, thanks to this procedural conference committee, the differences between the House and the Senate have been worked out. So we were on the education bill yesterday. The Senate will likely consider that exact same bill next week, which means it will likely go to President Obama's desk before Christmas. This transportation bill the House considers today, I don't know the Senate's schedule, but hopefully in the next week or two they will consider this exact same bill, and hopefully it will go to President Obama's desk. So we had a very quick meeting of the Rules Committee yesterday. My goodness, usually when the Rules Committee meets, those are contentious meetings. We have a lot of amendments from Democrats and Republicans that want to have their voice heard. But on a final conference report, it went pretty quickly, and members of our committee on both sides of the aisle had a lot of praise for the chair and the ranking member of the committee that had worked tirelessly to put this deal together. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act--they came up with a clever acronym, FAST. That works well, right? Transportation, fast, we all want to go fast, not too fast. The act commits $305 billion over a 5-year period towards improving our Nation's roads, bridges, transit systems, and railways. This is something that Republicans and Democrats both agree is the job of government. Transportation, infrastructure, and making sure people can get from one place to another is one of the most critical roles that our government plays. In the first year, FAST increases spending on highways by $2.1 billion. By the final year, the funding levels will reach $6.1 billion in addition to current investment. It also raises transit funding from $8.6 billion to almost $10.6 billion by 2020. It establishes a Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program that helps focus our attention on projects that increase the competitiveness of American goods and services by expanding and improving upon heavily trafficked freight routes. Two that affect us in Colorado--very near and dear to my district--are highway 25, from Denver to Wyoming, and highway 70, from Denver to Salt Lake City, which we were able to successfully include an amendment in the House version, which I am proud to say is also reflected in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, these Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects open the door to economic development, improve the flow of goods across our great country, increase the quality of life for residents, ease congestion and safety concerns, and, along our particular corridors, are to the benefit of tourism and the tourism industry as well. This bill helps leverage private investment in our surface transportation program by promoting the use of public-private partnerships which simply have become a reality for many infrastructure projects today like those used to expand highway 36 from Denver to Boulder, which I drive on most days that I am back home in Colorado. The FAST Act encourages installation of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure equipment--which the Colorado Department of Transportation has been at the cutting edge of designing and implementing--to improve congestion, ensure passenger safety, and really help create a 21st century infrastructure. This bill helps increase dedicated bus funding by 89 percent over the life of the bill, a change that was direly needed after the last highway authorization. The FAST Act maintains local flexibility for STP Metro funding, allows governments to dictate what is best for our communities, and leaves the door open for complex transportation infrastructure projects like the northeast line of the Denver Regional Transportation District's FasTrack system, which our voters approved a decade ago. The bill requires a feasibility study to determine an impairment standard for drivers under the influence of marijuana, something that I introduced a bill on and have been working hard on to increase the safety of driving in States where marijuana is legalized, like my home State of Colorado. This bill increases funding for highway railway grade crossings and requires operators to report the movements of hazardous materials along railroads, many of which, again, traverse my district. In Fort Collins, in Loveland, and in Longmont, where trains run through the downtown every day, these types of commonsense safety measures are desperately needed and welcomed. The bill includes reforms to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing loan program--a loan that can be used to divert cumbersome traffic out of the middle of our downtown areas like in Fort Collins--to ensure speedy approval. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good bill. The policy changes are thoughtful and progressive. The funding levels authorized are an improvement upon those of the past. The financing sources we tap, while not ideal, are workable. Now, it is always fair to say in any compromise that we could have done better. There are a few things I am disappointed that this bill doesn't contain. We were on the edge of cutting a deal that would have included international tax reform that would have brought American wealth home, used the taxes gained to fund transportation and infrastructure restoration projects nationwide, and prevented the offshoring of corporations, which we continue to see. Earlier this Congress, Mr. Speaker, I introduced a bill with my friend, Representative Delaney, that would have deemed repatriation at 8.75 percent to fund both a 6-year highway bill at increased funding levels and create a new, national infrastructure bank. Combining international tax reform--desperately needed in its own right--with bold and robust infrastructure investment is a forward-thinking, problem-solving solution and exactly the type of move that I wish--and the American people wish--that Congress could have made. Our failure to come to a deal on the repatriation of overseas wealth has, unfortunately, robbed the American people of hundreds of billions of dollars in public investment and continues to abandon the $2 trillion in overseas earnings that could have been brought home. In addition, we fail to address the tax incentive that American companies have to merge with overseas corporations or relocate their own headquarters overseas to avoid paying American taxes. We came close--we came close--to addressing this in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to address international tax reform as soon possible to prevent the continuing offshoring of companies and the moving of jobs overseas, as well as to ensure that over $2 trillion in overseas earnings can be invested here in America rather than face an enormous tax penalty if it is brought back, thereby preventing it from being brought back and providing an incentive for companies to invest in overseas growth and infrastructure rather than investing in infrastructure and growth here at home. Mr. Speaker, the failure to contain corporate tax reform is not my only challenge in supporting this bill. There were certainly other programs that I believe we could have invested in, like improving even more the TIFIA investment which funds important projects like those needed along highways 70 and 25 in my district. I would have liked to have seen a direct funding stream tied to improvement and maintenance projects along designated high-priority corridors. Finally, I would have liked to have seen the plight of communities with rail running through their downtowns addressed in the bill, an issue very near and dear to the cities in my district, cities like Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont, which are changed entirely by constant disruption of train horns and road blockages through our busy downtown areas. The economic loss that we face in our communities, on top of the disturbance to residents' quality of life, isn't something that we can continue to sit by and do nothing about. We are going to work with every bit of flexibility in the bill. We continue to work with the department on less expensive implementation of quiet zones and of trying to reopen the rulemaking around train horns, which we expect to happen shortly, but there is no specific statutory fix to that issue in this bill itself. So while I support this bill and commend the effort and the regular order that led to us getting here, we still need to look at what we can do. We see this bill as a floor, not a ceiling. There is even more we can do to bring our transportation infrastructure into the 21st century, to ensure its funding source is reliable and sustained, to repatriate overseas earnings and invest them here at home, and to eliminate an incentive for American companies to move overseas. I hope my Republican colleagues agree that passage of this bill doesn't mean that we retire from presenting new, thoughtful ideas to improve our Federal highway system. I hope that Republicans and Democrats will continue to partner to address and solve some of these issues that I have raised that are not included in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds before I further yield. I agree with many of the critiques from the gentleman from Wisconsin. I think, when you pick apart a lot of the ways that this bill is paid for, you will find that they either won't generate the amount of revenue we think they will or you are borrowing from the outyears, meaning years 5 through 10, to effectively fund years 1 through 5. I know a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle will weigh that in their vote. I wish that the committee could have done better in finding pay-fors. I would like to briefly address the national petroleum reserve. I think it is great that Democrats and Republicans are coming together around selling assets the Federal Government has that are nonproductive assets, like the petroleum reserve that was set up for a time when America relied on foreign oil. We are now net producers of crude oil. I introduced an amendment that was not allowed for the energy bill yesterday to sell down the entire strategic petroleum reserve, which I think we should. However, the accounting for it in this bill shows us magically receiving twice the value per barrel for the price of oil than the futures market actually indicates that we would get. That is simply fictitious accounting in terms of how this bill is paid for. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. POLIS

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 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

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.

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. I am proud to say today that the bill under this rule is a major step forward. For those who are thinking of opposing it, realize that, in opposing it, you are ensuring that No Child Left Behind will continue exactly as it is. There is never a perfect alternative. I am sure, if each of us had the opportunity to write our own education bill, we would have 435 different bills. What we have before us is a good, realistic compromise that can replace No Child Left Behind with a new Federal education law. It is something that is long overdue for the kids of this country, something that will be a boost in morale to teachers and educators in this country, and something that will encourage innovation at the State and district level. I will talk about some of those provisions that do just that. Just a few weeks ago I met with some teachers and students at Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado. They expressed their frustration with what has become everyday challenges in K-12 schools and how detached our No Child Left Behind law from 15 years ago is with the realities of education today. Teachers are spending less time teaching and more time administering high-stakes test or teaching of the test. Students are spending less time learning. As a result, schools have less time to focus on teaching real skills that students need to be ready for college or to be ready for careers in technical education after high school. Unfortunately, schools across my district and the country have been experiencing the same frustrations as the teachers and students at Rocky Mountain High who I met with a couple weeks ago. These frustrations are in many ways the result of the outdated education law, No Child Left Behind, which passed in 2001, which was well intentioned, but imposed a one-size-fits-all accountability system, a flawed one at that, on a diverse set of States and districts across our country. That is why I am so excited to be here on the floor of the House with the opportunity to speak about the new conference report, the new bipartisan, bicameral ESEA Reauthorization, the Every Student Succeeds Act, which passed 39-1 in our conference committee. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me and the other conferees in replacing No Child Left Behind with Every Student Succeeds Act. The Every Student Succeeds Act is the result of years of work by both Chambers. Former Ranking Member and former Chair George Miller, former Ranking Member and Chair Buck McKeon, current Chair Mr. Kline, and Mr. Scott have worked tirelessly, along with their staffs, over years to be able to put together something that both Democrats and Republicans can feel good about. Because guess what. We both care about kids. We both care about education. It is not a partisan issue. Now, we might have our differences about how to improve our schools. Let's put all those good ideas on the table. And they were. And they were voiced. We were able to build and improve deeply upon the highly flawed first version of this bill that the House passed, which would have taken Federal dollars away from the poorest schools and given it to wealthier schools. The House-passed bill would have completely failed students with disabilities by allowing unlimited students to have no accountability by classifying them as students with disabilities for alternative assessments, sweeping under the rug the tremendous amount of progress that students with disabilities have made since No Child Left Behind. The first version of the bill didn't establish any accountability for graduation or proficiency rates or any parameters for interventions to ensure that we could improve struggling schools. Now, when the Every Student Succeeds Act finally passed the House, it barely passed. It passed in a purely partisan manner. No Democrats supported the bill, and many Republicans didn't support the bill. Now, the silver lining of that is that it allowed the process to move forward. I am proud to say, after months of hard work by the staff and the chair and ranking member, the conference committee has succeeded in reporting out a bill that I believe is better than the Senate bill, better than the House bill, and certainly better than No Child Left Behind. When the conferees met, several Members offered thoughtful amendments that built upon and improved the conference framework even more. For example, Mr. Messer offered an amendment that would allow funds to be used to educate teachers about best practices for student data privacy. I offered a successful amendment that increases dual and concurrent enrollment opportunities for English language learners, something near and dear to my heart as the founder of the New America School charter school network. The conference committee took the framework and turned it into a robust bill that replaces No Child Left Behind with a system that works better for students, for educators, for families, and for schools. When ESEA was first passed in 1965, first and foremost, it was seen properly as a critical piece of civil rights legislation. For the first time, the Federal Government was making a commitment that every child, regardless of race, background, or ZIP Code, deserved a great education to prepare them for success. Any reauthorization of ESEA needs to uphold that same commitment to civil rights that was established in 1965. While the Every Student Succeeds Act isn't perfect, I believe that it upholds that commitment to civil rights that is such an important role for the Federal Government to play. Most importantly, the Every Student Succeeds Act includes strong accountability provisions that ensure that underimproving schools are identified and improved. Now, title I in Every Student Succeeds Act has come a long way from the original House bill. The number of Members in the House, including those in the new Democratic coalition and the Tri-Caucus, demanded stronger accountability provisions in the conference report. I am very happy to see that the conference report has delivered. Specifically, the Every Student Succeeds Act maintains annual statewide assessments, which gives States, districts, teachers, and parents valuable information about how students are performing and the tools they need to improve student performance. This data will be broken down by subgroup, by race, by socioeconomic status, to ensure that no students are swept under the rug. This bill includes a clear framework for identifying consistently low-performing schools and provides resources and ensures that States intervene to improve them. It fully maintains our promise to parents of students with disabilities, the promise that schools will be accountable to ensure that their child is learning and that the unique learning needs of their children are met. To be clear, these requirements are not the same top-down, one-size- fits-all accountability provisions of No Child Left Behind. The one- size-fits-all formula of adequate yearly progress is rightfully gone. The accountability provisions in Every Student Succeeds Act creates a framework for States as they create their own meaningful accountability plans. This means that States can be flexible and innovative to create specific policies that work for them. It is a challenge to States to rise to the occasion in meeting the learning needs of all students while maintaining those Federal rails to ensure that no child is left out. This bill provides additional flexibility around testing by allowing high-quality, Federally recognized tests to also meet the annual testing requirements in high school. In my district, high schoolers take the Colorado State test, the ACT, and, if necessary, AP or IB exams. That is a lot of testing in the final years of high school. This new flexibility would mean that a pending application that Colorado has for the ACT to stand in place of the Colorado State test would be specifically allowed in statute under this bill, and I couldn't be more proud of that provision. This bill also maintains strong support for high-quality charter schools, something that I have made a hallmark of my time here in Congress and have been a coauthor of bills that have passed this body overwhelmingly. That charter school language is reflected in this bill. The language would improve charter school access and service for all students, give new and innovative charter schools those tools they need to meet their goal of serving at-risk and diverse students that ensure that our limited Federal investment supports the replication and expansion of high-quality, innovative charter schools. Before I came to Congress, I founded two public charter school networks. I know the freedom to innovate and the flexibility to pursue a unique mission within public education can help charter schools succeed at the highest levels. This bill also contains a commitment to education technology and innovation. The Investing in Innovation program has also been one of my top priorities in this bill. In Colorado, the St. Vrain Valley School District, which I represent a good portion of, received a $3.6 million innovation grant to expand programs for at-risk kids in seven schools. Because of that grant, St. Vrain was able to extend the school year at four elementary schools that serve at-risk kids, target math students at risk of failing at two middle schools that implement the STEM Academy at Skyline High School. I couldn't be more proud of this provision. Now, this rule also has a corporate welfare giveaway to the oil and gas industry. Thankfully, they are two separate votes. So my colleagues can vote against corporate welfare for the oil and gas industry, one of the most profitable industries on the face of the planet, and vote for kids. I do encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule, which has the oil and gas corporate welfare bill. If it simply was a straight-up vote on ESEA, I think my Democratic colleagues would join me in supporting the rule. Unfortunately, it is not. They stuck another bill in there that is an enormous multibillion- dollar giveaway to the most profitable industry on the face of the planet, trying to preserve the fossil fuel industry rather than find a pathway forward to transition toward a lower carbon emission future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

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

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I respect my good friend and colleague from Colorado. Part of the goal of this amendment is to ensure that the full area of disruption receives notification. So where you have a suburban subdevelopment, it is one thing for the owner under which the activity is occurring to get notice. But keep in mind the activity also has an impact certainly within a mile radius of that activity in terms of loud noises, trucks, et cetera. Families may choose to leave town; others may choose to stick it out and make sure they are prepared for whatever activity will occur, when it occurs. But, clearly, if there are notification aspects in the current law, which there are, they are insufficient, because I come before you telling you that there are homeowners in Colorado who have no prior word of extraction activity on their land until, literally, they see it occurring. They see trucks, they see people. They go out, they say, ``What are you doing?'' and they say, ``We are getting ready to drill.'' This happens in my State. This amendment would make sure that, more than a good faith effort that is simply signed off on by some bureaucrat and therefore waived, there is a real effort of implementation. We give full rulemaking authority to the BLM to actually come up with a system for notifying homeowners and adjacent property owners about extraction work that is occurring for the mineral rights that occur under where they live. I hope that this is a basis of common sense from which we can build a concept of homeowner protections and surface owner rights to balance the rights that the mineral owners have. Certainly, transparency and notification is a simple one and an easy one for the BLM to implement. That is all the amendment would do. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I wish that this amendment weren't necessary. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of homeowners in Colorado who fail to be notified by the BLM. Now, there is a good faith effort requirement, but there is no system in place to ensure that the person gets a notification. So, in effect, what happens is the agency will sign off, ``We made a good faith effort, couldn't find who the property owner was,'' and it is posted in the Federal Register or in a newspaper in an ad that the homeowner is extremely unlikely to ever see. What we are simply saying is have a step to implement this directive that already exists. Give this meaning; give this teeth. Make sure that homeowners are actually notified in the mail, that there is an effort to actually find out who they are, and not just a bureaucratic signoff that we don't know who they are and, therefore, they are never going to find out until trucks drive onto their property. It is a real problem, and there is a real simple, commonsense solution. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain how in many States, including my home State of Colorado, landowners--if you live in a home, you own your property, you bought it--you are not necessarily and in most cases, in fact, you are not also the owner of the minerals beneath your land. That is called a split estate. Many, in fact most, surface estates in my State were split from their subsurface or mineral rights--severed. And Congress rewrote the rules of the Homestead Act to maintain ownership over minerals even as they gave away western lands for development. So, again, what that means is we have suburban subdevelopments, people's homes--people live in their homes--and the Federal Government owns the mineral rights under those homes. Along with that comes the right to extract those minerals. Unfortunately, what fails to be present in the Homestead Act is protections and notification requirements for the people who live there, the homeowners. So, in some cases, in Colorado and elsewhere, landholders and homeowners don't even know that there has been a lease or a drill permit on their land where they own the surface rights. Literally, one day an oil company can drive up to the property and construct a horizontal drill in the middle of your backyard without notification. So you can imagine the result--harm and loss of cattle or crops, infrastructure on the property--not knowing what is occurring. And, really, it has been amazing to see the ability of the extraction industry to operate without having to address the legitimate concerns of surface owners. Now, my bill doesn't change all of that, and, frankly, I would like to go a lot further and will in other legislative efforts. This amendment is really a commonsense effort that is a critical first step to right those wrongs. It would simply require that the BLM notify a landowner sitting above mineral rights that they plan to put out for bid, award, lease, or sale a drilling permit on that land. The BLM will argue that there are notification requirements. What that means is it might be posted on a Web site or in the Federal Register. Well, I guarantee you that Mr. or Mrs. Smith in a suburban subdevelopment are not eagerly checking the Federal Register every day. They are not even generally aware that there are mineral rights under their property, nor should they have to be. They should simply get a letter in the mail saying what is happening if and when there is going to be mineral development on their property. And I think that is a simple, commonsense step that would protect American taxpayers from undue, unreasonable burdens placed upon them and protect property rights. I really hope it is not controversial and that we can adopt this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, when ESEA was first signed in 1965, it was a critical piece of civil rights legislation. In fact, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill, he said it bridges the gap between helplessness and hope for millions of students affected by it. The bill before us today maintains President Johnson's commitment to the achievement of every child, regardless of race, socioeconomic background, or ZIP Code. Many of my colleagues have talked about the new flexibility provided in the bill. Well, that is true, but it is flexibility to meet the learning needs of every kid, not the flexibility to fail. Flexibility does not mean freedom from responsibility. States are accountable for the achievement of each and every child under this bill, and I am confident that President Obama wouldn't sign any bill that doesn't maintain strong civil rights protections. And I would never support a bill that would allow students to be swept under the rug. This bill upholds the spirit of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am proud to support it today and support innovative solutions to improve the opportunities for learning that every child in our country has.