[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 124 (Thursday, September 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8013-H8017]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3248, DOLLARS TO THE CLASSROOM ACT

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 543 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H8014]]

                              H. Res. 543

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3248) to provide dollars to the classroom. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. Points of order against the committee in 
     the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 
     7 of rule XVI are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce 
     to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendments the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 543 is a structured rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. The rule 
provides for the traditional 1 hour of general debate, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  It makes in order the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be considered 
as read. The rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI prohibiting nongermane 
amendments against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  In addition, the rule makes in order only the amendments printed in 
the report on the rule, to be offered only in the order printed, by the 
Member specified, and debatable for the time specified in the report, 
with the time equally divided between a proponent and an opponent.
  The amendments are considered as read and are not subject to 
amendment. Also, all points of order are waived against the amendments.
  The rule permits the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone consideration of a request for a recorded vote on any 
amendment and to reduce to 5 minutes the time for voting after the 
first of a series of votes.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3248, the underlying legislation, the Dollars to 
the Classroom Act, is the legislation that implements the sense of the 
House expressed in House Resolution 139, the Dollars to the Classroom 
resolution, which passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 310 to 99 
last session. When the vast majority of our colleagues voted for House 
Resolution 139, this House stated very clearly and unequivocally that 
we believed that the Federal education dollars that are sent to the 
States should be sent as much as possible directly to our local 
schools.
  The goal we are seeking with the implementing legislation, with this 
underlying legislation, what we are seeking to accomplish is to make 
certain that no less than 95 percent of the Department of Education's 
elementary and secondary education program funds are spent at the local 
level, where they should be spent. With this bill, more money will go 
straight to the classroom where it will have, obviously, the best 
possible impact.
  Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) are to be commended for bringing this 
important piece of legislation forward. I believe the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce did a very good job in marking up this 
bill.
  Given that only 5 amendments were offered in the committee of 
jurisdiction and that the Committee on Rules gave the entire membership 
of the House 6 days to file amendments on this bill and yet we, in the 
Committee on Rules, received only 2 amendments, I believe that this 
structured rule is the correct approach for this bill's consideration.
  The rule makes in order all of the amendments that were filed with 
the Committee on Rules, even though only 2 Members took the time to do 
so. Anyone interested in amending this bill has had 6 days, Mr. 
Speaker, to make their amendment plans known. Also, given that we are 
moving close to the end of the 105th Congress and we have obviously 
many important issues to resolve in the appropriations process, time is 
certainly in short supply.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do nothing more important than to protect and to 
strengthen the future of this great Nation, and our children represent 
the future of this great Nation. We are losing jobs because of some of 
the evident failures of our educational system, especially in the 
advanced math and engineering fields.
  Seriously addressing the educational needs of our children has become 
one of the true challenges for the United States of America. We have an 
obligation to assure that students of all ages receive the best 
possible education and that the funds entrusted to us by the taxpayers 
are spent wisely. In the effort by the House of Representatives to send 
a message of its commitment toward Federal funding for education, I 
supported the Dollars to the Classroom resolution, urging the Federal 
bureaucracy to send at least 90 percent of Federal education dollars 
directly to the classroom. It is important that we put some teeth into 
that sense of the House Resolution and that we implement what we 
overwhelmingly agreed was a worthwhile goal.
  House Resolution 3248 consolidates and streamlines 31 Federal 
education programs, giving State and local decision makers increased 
authority and flexibility in the use of Federal education dollars, and 
this legislation will send more of the money to the classroom where it 
will be used to help our students.
  No one knows the educational needs of our children better than their 
teachers.

                              {time}  2030

  There is no better way to support education, genuinely, than by 
sending Federal dollars directly to the schools where it is most 
needed.
  Mr. Speaker, this is very good legislation. I am proud to be 
supporting it. I believe that House Resolution 543 is also an 
appropriately structured rule to bring this legislation to the floor, 
and I urge its adoption. I support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying 
bill because the bill makes unprecedented changes in many Federal 
educational initiatives. Despite that fact, the Committee on Rules 
chose to block any amendment that might otherwise be offered during 
floor debate, except two

[[Page H8015]]

amendments prefiled with the Committee on Rules.
  What is the majority afraid of? Some might say that in the press of 
business at the end of the fiscal year, we cannot afford open debate 
and amendment. But this bill was reported from the committee on June 
24. Why was that report not filed until September 11, forcing 
consideration at this busy time?
  Mr. Speaker, I fear the process has been manipulated to shut down 
debate on how this bill will affect millions of children across our 
Nation. Closed rules are the refuge of those who fear democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, our country's public schools are in critical need of our 
support, our resources, and our guidance. Supporting public education 
needs to be placed at the forefront of the House's agenda. This bill 
does just the opposite. Under the guise of reform, H.R. 3248 
consolidates many important education programs into a single block 
grant, with no accountability and no guarantee that the money will be 
spent on the specific needs for which they were originally intended.
  The 31 programs eliminated by this misguided legislation were created 
for this very reason, to fill existing needs. For example, I remember 
quite well back in 1987, when I was first in Congress, and Congress 
passed the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program under the 
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. I remember it quite well 
because we wrote it.
  Reports issued in the mid-1980s showed that more than 50 percent of 
the homeless children and youth were not attending school. Homeless 
children suffer disproportionately from health problems, nutritional 
deficiencies and developmental disabilities. Uprooted day after day, 
more than half of them were school dropouts.
  The Congress found it unacceptable for these children to be denied an 
education, the major source of stability in their lives, and the only 
hope for these children to build a better life for themselves. The 
Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program was created because 
State and local schools were not meeting the responsibility to these 
children. The program set standards for the placement of homeless 
children in appropriate schools and provided funding to help supply the 
tools they would need to be successful in school.
  It is hard to do well in school when one does not have the clothes to 
wear, the books to read, the basic school supplies, a required place to 
do homework, or transportation to school. Through grants to schools, 
the program encourages supplemental tutoring and assistance to help 
these children make up for school time they may have lost when their 
families became homeless.
  Despite periodic attacks levied against it, this program has resulted 
in documented improvement in school access and enrollment. Thousands of 
children have been given a chance to succeed in life that they would 
not otherwise have had. Our Nation's future is better because we help 
these children to succeed in education and in life, rather than giving 
up on them and likely supporting them for much of their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that local school districts do not know 
what to do for the majority of their students, but like governmental 
officials everywhere, they spend their scarce resources on programs 
that benefit the majority. They, like all of us, pay attention to their 
constituents who contact them, who vote and who organize support 
groups. Unfortunately, homeless families, struggling to survive, do not 
have the time or the resources to effectively lobby the local school 
board. Yet a small investment, and it has been a small investment, by 
the Federal Government can help school districts recognize the homeless 
children's special needs and meet them, with an enormous return on the 
investment to both the children and to the community.
  Mr. Speaker, as the author of the major reauthorizations of this 
program, I know its successes. And while I am not as familiar with the 
other 30 programs that this bill would block grant, I believe it is 
likely that they, too, are designed to fill an important need that was 
not being addressed by financially pressed local school districts.
  Now, some may consider programs such as the Women's Educational 
Equity, Gifted and Talented Education, Arts in Education, and the 
Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program, frills. But these 
small, targeted programs assure that all our children can receive the 
education that will allow them to become the best that they can be. If 
these programs are abolished, all accountability to ensure that schools 
meet the national priorities stated in these programs will also be 
eliminated.
  In fact, this legislation goes as far as to prohibit accountability 
by barring the Secretary of Education from imposing any meaningful 
performance or accountability standards regarding the expenditure of 
funding under this bill. And who do these programs target? The 
legislation includes a distribution formula which lessens the Federal 
Government's focus on the children who need our help the most: the 
poor.
  The Federal Government must continue taking an active role in 
addressing the needs of low-income families. A recent GAO study makes 
the point that Federal education programs do a better job of targeting 
resources to those most in need than State and local efforts do. I find 
it utterly shameful that this House would endorse legislation that 
shirks our responsibility to the neediest of our children.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill overturns decades of Federal education policy. 
It ought to receive substantial debate so that Members understand what 
it will really do. And if that debate sparks Members to think of ways 
to make the bill better, those Members should have the right to offer 
germane amendments. This rule provides neither enough time for adequate 
consideration nor the right for most Members to offer amendments.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule so that this abrupt reversal 
of Federal education policy can receive the full consideration it 
deserves.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to advise my colleagues that we are privileged that the two 
Members of this House who are most knowledgeable on this legislation, 
that will do so much to get dollars to the classroom and not keep the 
dollars with the bureaucracy in Washington, dollars that our kids need 
for their public education, those two Members of Congress who most know 
what this legislation actually will carry out and accomplish, they are 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to make sure I choose my words very carefully, because what 
the Department of Education has been circulating, what the lobbyists 
for the chief State school officers is circulating, and what OMB is 
circulating is, let me find a word, ``disingenuous'' at the very best. 
Now, I am being very kind when I say that, because if I used the real 
language that I should be using it would be much stronger than just 
``disingenuous.''
  What they are doing is trying to raise a battle about the 
appropriation process. So they are trying to mix apples and oranges. 
Yes, the Committee on Appropriations has reduced funding in this 
particular area. It will not happen by the time it goes through 
conference, et cetera; but they have, and so they are trying to use 
those numbers.
  Well, I understand why they are doing this. They do not really have 
an argument against the legislation. They do not have an argument 
against the legislation because it sends an additional, at least, $425 
down to every classroom.
  Now, what their argument is, that they do not want to come out and 
say is, we do not want to give up all our bureaucratic jobs. We want to 
keep these people on the payroll. And that is what the chief school 
administrator representative is saying. And back in the State: We want 
to keep them on the State level; spend the money there. Do not worry 
about children. We know better in the bureaucracy. So, first of

[[Page H8016]]

all, they do not have an argument because they know more money gets to 
the classroom.
  They also do not have an argument because they know that we have a 
hold-harmless 100 percent for all formula grant programs, a hold-
harmless program in place for all formula grant programs.
  They also do not want to admit that the parents and the local 
administrators and the local teachers have a far better idea how to 
spend this money than the bureaucrats in Washington.
  Now, the interesting thing is that people will get up and say, oh, 
they will use this money for playground equipment. They will use this 
money to build a swimming pool. Well, guess what? The only place they 
use this money is in the very same programs that now exist. The very 
same programs.
  However, they do not have to fill out 31 applications, page after 
page after page. They do not have to have all of the rules and 
regulations that come from the Federal level. We have two pages of 
accountability in this legislation. Very, very strong accountability 
language.
  Now, I think it would be important to say what the uses of this 
money, for what they can use this money. I am trying to keep the 
preposition off the end of the sentence. After all, we are speaking 
about education. These are the uses of the money:
  Let me start with number nine. Programs for homeless children and 
youth. Now, the only way we could argue that this will not happen is 
because we do not trust the State; we do not trust the local school 
district. But, Mr. Speaker, if that school district has a large number 
of homeless children, they can spend all the money for that purpose. 
That is the beauty. Each local school can determine that. So if we do 
not trust our local school districts or if we do not trust our States, 
then I suppose we would have an argument.
  The money will be used for professional development for instructional 
staff. The money will be used for programs for the acquisition and use 
of instructional and educational materials. The money will be used for 
programs to improve the higher order thinking skills of disadvantaged 
elementary and secondary school students, and to prevent students from 
dropping out of school.
  The money will be used in efforts to lengthen the school day or the 
school year, if that is what the local district believes it should be 
used for. It will be used for programs to combat illiteracy in the 
student population. It will be used for programs to provide for the 
education needs of gifted and talented children.
  It will be used for promising education reform projects that are tied 
to State student content and performance standards. It will be used to 
carry out comprehensive school reform programs that are based on 
reliable research.
  Do these not all sound very, very familiar? They should, because they 
are exactly the programs that are out there now.
  All we are doing is saying we ought to get 95 cents of that dollar 
down to the local classroom, where it will make the difference with 
students, not to the bureaucrats in Washington, not to the bureaucrats 
in the State, not to some of the private groups, Washington-based. No, 
to the children; to the teachers, so that, as a matter of fact, they 
can improve education.
  It can be used for programs built upon partnerships between local 
educational agencies and institutions of higher education. Sounds very 
familiar, does it not?
  It can be used for the acquisition of books, materials and equipment. 
It can be used for programs to promote academic achievement among women 
and girls. Does that not sound familiar?
  It can be used for programs to provide for the education needs of 
children with limited English proficiency, or who are American Indian, 
Alaskan Native, or Hawaiian. It can be used for activities to provide 
the academic support, enrichment, and motivation to enable all students 
to reach high State standards.
  It can be used for efforts to reduce the pupil-to-teacher ratio. It 
can be used for projects and programs which assure the participation in 
mainstream settings in arts and education programs of individuals with 
disabilities.
  I am reading, folks, the 26 uses of the money, which are the 26 uses 
of the money at the present time.
  What do we cut out? We cut out reams and reams and reams of 
paperwork. If you are a school district and you cannot afford to hire 
people to sit there day after day, hour after hour, trying to fill out 
these damnable applications that come from Washington, D.C., you do not 
get a grant. You do not have a chance.
  So all we are cutting out is the bureaucracy in Washington, the 
bureaucracy in the State, giving an opportunity for parents, children 
and teachers and administrators on the local level to determine which 
of these allowable uses are most important to them.
  One district may decide to spend half of that money on one or two of 
these. Another district may decide that there are five or six, but 
certainly we should not be saying there is a one size fits all. For 
what York City may need, York suburban may not need, in my own school 
district. So I hope that when we get into this tomorrow that we will 
not hear people getting up and misrepresenting what the legislation 
does, and I hope none of them get up and use any of the, and again, I 
want to be careful, apparently disingenuous information being put out 
by the Department of Education and being put out by the lobbyists for 
the State school officers.
  I think it is very, very important that tomorrow's debate has nothing 
to do with the appropriation process. That is another time to debate 
that. If the Members want to debate that, debate that when the 
appropriation bill comes on the floor but do not take the numbers that 
that appropriations committee has now produced, because we know that 
those will not be the numbers by the time the conference is over 
anyway.
  Do not mix apples and oranges. Let us think about children. Let us 
think about getting money down to the classroom, where it can be used 
effectively and efficiently to do all the things that we in Washington, 
D.C. said should be done, but done their way on the local level.
  Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule makes the 
ranking member's amendment, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), to 
reduce class size in order.
  H.R. 3248 continues to be a bad bill. It is not that I do not trust 
the schools and the school districts, as my good chairman would make us 
think. I do not trust the Congress and our funding priorities. Claiming 
that Dollars to the Classroom Act will increase education funding 
really means that we need some remedial lessons in math and history 
here on this floor.
  The only way dollars to the classroom can increase funds for schools 
is for Congress to appropriate more money for the block grant. Then 
each individual program can get more. We already know that that is not 
going to happen. We have seen the fiscal year 1999 Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill. We know that the programs being block granted in 
the Dollars to the Classroom Act are being cut by 20 percent; 20 
percent.
  That comes as no surprise to those of us who know our history. We 
know that block grants historically lose funds. A 1995 GAO report found 
that when Congress created a series of block grants in the early 
eighties funding for those programs declined significantly.
  Here is what the State Superintendent of Public Education in 
California, Delaine Eastin, wrote to me about H.R. 3248. She said, and 
I quote, ``H.R. 3248 leaves future education funding extremely 
vulnerable at a time when schools are managing record levels of student 
enrollment. Growing populations of students with special needs, 
increased demand for teachers, staggering school construction needs and 
changing educational technologies.''
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the lessons of professional 
educators in their States and in mine. Mathematically and historically, 
block grants mean less dollars, not more, for our schools and for our 
students. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am against this rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H8017]]

Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a distinguished Member of this House who has 
worked tirelessly on this very important and innovative piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PITTS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that we 
understand that Chapter 2 funding was reduced not because of the then 
minority party. Chapter 2 funding was reduced by the then majority 
party, a program that all educators loved.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of H.R. 3248, the 
Dollars to the Classroom Act. We have been working almost 2 years on 
this legislation and it is exciting to get to this point.
  I want to especially commend the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), for his tremendous leadership as he has shepherded this 
through committee and now brought this to the floor and fine-tuned the 
bill. He has done an outstanding job and all of our thanks go to him.
  Before getting to the specifics of the bill, I would like to just 
mention that the one thing that I am really looking forward to is going 
back to my district, and every Member can do this, and taking a check 
like this, because this check to the children of the 16th Congressional 
District represents money that is freed up from the bureaucracy that is 
consumed now by the Federal bureaucracy in all kinds of wasted tax 
dollars, and this money is going to be going directly through the 
States to the classrooms to these children in all of our schools around 
the Nation. This is a win for school children, for parents, for 
teachers, in every one of our districts.
  As we probably know, the Dollars to the Classroom Act will 
consolidate 31 Federal programs into a single flexible grant to the 
States with the requirement that 95 cents of every one of these Federal 
dollars gets to the classroom to be used on the priorities of the local 
teachers and parents, the local schools. It can be used for any one of 
those authorized 31 programs, but it can be used in the classroom for 
things such as teachers' salaries, teachers' aides, equipment, books, 
computer supplies, whatever their needs are. We know that the needs of 
one district are not necessarily the needs of another district, but 
they can be used according the local priorities.
  If they want to reduce classroom sizes, if they want to spend it on 
teaching reading, connecting the classroom to the Internet, whatever 
their needs are, they can use it all.
  It is estimated today by the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, and we did not consolidate all programs, we did not touch 
Title I, that is a very efficient program. We did not touch special ed, 
migrant ed, voc ed, but we took 31 programs, programs like Goals 2000, 
School-to-Work, we consolidated them. Those monies that are going to 
the local school districts are increased because of the flexibility and 
the reduced requirements for no paperwork, without the administrative 
requirements that are presently in place.

  This could mean an additional approximately $9,300 per school, 
approximately $425 per classroom. Every State wins. Every State is held 
harmless.
  So we are putting our children first, not the bureaucrats first.
  Now, look at this chart. Before the Dollars to the Classroom Act, 
there are the existing 31 programs with all kinds of funds being 
siphoned off at the Federal level, the State educational agencies, and 
finally getting down to the schools. After the Dollars to the Classroom 
Act, we have got a single grant stream directly through the States to 
the classroom.
  I would like to also mention that every State is held harmless, and 
we have an inflationary grant. This is an authorization bill. This is 
not an appropriations bill.
  Now, I understand the arguments about changing an appropriations 
bill. Whatever the appropriations level, this will get more of that 
money into the local classroom.
  So it comes down to this argument: Who do you trust with your tax 
dollars; your local teachers and parents or bureaucrats?
  I think all of us should stand with our local parents, teachers, 
principals and children, the real beneficiaries. Those who are in the 
place where the real learning takes place, who are going to be the 
beneficiaries of this bill, stand with them and not the bureaucrats. So 
I urge my colleagues to help send the dollars to the classroom by 
supporting the rule.
  Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) if he has any more requests 
for time?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, not in the chamber at this time.
  Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, reiterating my support for the 
underlying legislation and this very fair rule, I also yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________