[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 20 (Thursday, February 7, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H628-H640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4137, COLLEGE OPPORTUNITY AND 
                       AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2007

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 956 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 956

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 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 Labor. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) 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 Labor now printed in the bill. 
     The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived 
     except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
       (b) Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 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 and 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on Education and Labor or his designee to 
     offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole. The original 
     proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc 
     may insert a statement in the Congressional Record 
     immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the 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.
       Sec. 5.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 4137 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.
       Sec. 6.  House Resolution 941 is laid upon the table.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentlewoman from Ohio is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 956.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 956 provides for consideration of H.R. 4137, the 
College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, under a structured 
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the 
Committee on Education and Labor.

[[Page H629]]

  The rule makes in order the Education and Labor Committee reported 
substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
  The rule makes in order the 27 amendments listed in the Rules 
Committee report, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes, except the 
Miller manager's amendment, which is debatable for 20 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, last year Congress passed the College Cost Reduction Act 
to increase college financial aid by $18 billion, the single largest 
increase in aid in over 60 years. That legislation significantly 
increased the maximum amount that Pell Grant recipients can receive at 
no new cost to taxpayers and was a strong start to this Congress' 
efforts to make higher education a reality for America's students. But 
that, Mr. Speaker, was just the beginning.
  I'm proud to rise today in strong support of H.R. 4137, the College 
Opportunity and Affordability Act. This will continue our efforts to 
make college more affordable and more accessible for America's 
students, while making investments in critical areas to strengthen our 
workforce.
  Our Nation is blessed to have the finest system of higher education 
in the world. There is a breadth of opportunities available to our 
graduating high school seniors: vocational and technical school, 2- and 
4-year colleges, and graduate and professional schools.
  Mr. Speaker, the challenge we face today is to ensure that our 
institutions of higher education are accessible to all, and the 
legislation we are passing today will make it easier for low-income and 
middle-class families to achieve the benefits of higher education as 
they climb up the ladder of success.
  Investing in our students not only improves their future, but it 
helps our economy and strengthens our competitive edge in the global 
marketplace. This bill continues this Congress' efforts to strengthen 
America's workforce by creating programs to improve teacher training 
and bolster student interests in science, math, and technology.
  We must also recognize and applaud our nontraditional students, those 
members of our workforce who are seizing the opportunity to continue 
their education while holding down full-time jobs and sometimes raising 
families. These students are often attending school less than half 
time, and thus, they sometimes benefit very little from traditional 
student aid. That's why I support my colleague Congressman Baird's 
amendment, which I hope will be incorporated into this bill, to require 
the Secretary of Education to study and recommend how best to design a 
loan program targeted at less than half-time students.
  One of the keys to expanding access to our institutions of higher 
learning is to bring down the exorbitant cost of attending college. 
Tuition hikes in recent years have been stunning, amounting to a 31 
percent increase at a 4-year public college in the last 5 years alone.
  This bill enhances transparency in college tuition by requiring 
colleges to report their reasons for tuition hikes and the plans they 
have for lowering costs. It also requires the Secretary of Education to 
publish a higher education price index, providing students with the 
opportunity to compare institutions by State, sector, and change in 
tuition and fees from one year to the next. This will allow students to 
make wiser decisions in choosing institutions that are a good fit for 
them and the dreams to which they aspire.
  A more immediate way to make the possibility of attaining a college 
degree a reality is to increase the aid available to our students, and 
I'm proud that this bill does that, doubling the maximum Pell Grant 
amount to $9,000.
  Beyond the sticker price of tuition, any student will tell you that 
the cost of textbooks is also a challenging cost they incur. The 
average student spends about $1,000 per year on textbooks, which is 
nearly 20 percent of tuition and fees at a 4-year public institution. 
Such high costs for textbooks can be the deciding factor which dashes 
or delays the dream of obtaining a college degree and a better life for 
many.
  This legislation requires publishers to provide specific information 
about pricing so that faculty has full information when making 
purchasing decisions so students can help plan for expenses.
  And in addition, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to support an amendment 
offered by my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Tim Ryan, along with 
Representative Jason Altmire, which will create a pilot grant program 
to assist colleges in setting up textbook rental programs. These 
programs already exist in 25 schools, and a pilot test at Bowling Green 
State University in Ohio last spring saved 151 students $11,000.
  We must also continue to strive to reduce the achievement gap in 
higher education between low-income and minority students and their 
peers. We can do this by ensuring that all students are prepared for 
the rigorous demands of higher learning. This bill strengthens the 
proven TRIO and GEAR UP college readiness and support programs for low-
income and first generation students. I have seen firsthand, Mr. 
Speaker, the great things that these programs can do in Elyria in my 
district, which is a GEAR UP site, and the University of Akron, which 
has received TRIO funding. I look forward to the expansion of these 
proven programs so that more students in Ohio and around the country 
may benefit.
  This legislation also addresses the disappointment we saw last year 
as the student loan scandal unfolded. Those financial aid directors 
that received kickbacks and payoffs and luxury gifts from private 
lenders exhibited a spectacular abuse of power and betrayal of the 
students they serve. This legislation cracks down on that abuse and 
restores accountability by requiring institutions and lenders to adopt 
strict codes of conduct and protect students from aggressive marketing 
by lenders. Institutions will also be required to provide students with 
information about Federal and private borrowing options.
  This bill will also encourage and make it financially feasible for 
students to become public servants by authorizing up to $10,000 in loan 
forgiveness for military servicemembers, firefighters, law enforcement 
officers, first responders, nurses, educators, prosecutors, and public 
defenders.
  This bill also continues the work this Congress has undertaken to 
support our troops by creating new scholarship and support programs for 
active duty military personnel, their family members, and veterans. It 
also establishes support centers to help veterans succeed in college 
and ensures fairness in student aid and housing aid for veterans to 
make it easier for them to go to college while also fulfilling their 
military service duties.
  I'm also proud to support an amendment being offered by my colleague 
Congresswoman Susan Davis that is based on legislation of which I'm a 
cosponsor. Her amendment will prevent interest from accruing for active 
duty servicemembers and qualifying National Guard members for the 
duration of their activation up to 60 months when serving in a combat 
zone.
  Mr. Speaker, the dream of a college education is moving further and 
further out of reach for middle- and low-income families. We need to 
put this prospect of a college education and a brighter future back in 
reach. Passing H.R. 4137 and building on the work we started last year 
is an important and priceless investment in the future of our children, 
our communities, and our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must do 
all that we can to make education more affordable so that more 
Americans can achieve the dream of graduating from college. This year 
alone over $90 billion in Federal financial aid is available to 
students. However, with tuition costs on the rise, students and their 
families continue to face the inevitable question of how to pay for a 
college education. I believe a balanced approach is needed, one that 
increases transparency of higher education costs and targets aid to the 
neediest students while simplifying the financial aid process and 
addressing the growing

[[Page H630]]

number of burdensome reporting requirements colleges and universities 
face.
  I share the goal of increasing access to higher education, but I have 
a number of concerns with the College Opportunity and Affordability 
Act, and I believe improvements to the bill are needed. Mr. Speaker, 
apparently Members on both sides of the aisle also share this view 
because over 60 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee before 
the deadline.
  The last time that this House considered a comprehensive higher 
education reauthorization bill was in 1998. At that time, the Rules 
Committee reported a modified open rule, and as a result, all Members 
of the House had an opportunity to preprint their amendments in the 
Congressional Record and offer them on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this time the Democrat-controlled 
Rules Committee chose a closed process to consider a long overdue 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Unfortunately, by 
reporting out a closed rule, Democrats on the Rules Committee once 
again chose to deny over 400 Members of Congress the opportunity to 
offer amendments to improve the bill. Furthermore, this rule makes in 
order five times as many Democrat amendments as Republican amendments.
  Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act is important, but by adopting 
this closed rule, an opportunity will be missed to make the underlying 
bill even better. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the College Opportunity and 
Affordability Act of 2007 and this rule because we are committed to 
making the cost of attending college more affordable and accessible. 
This is great news for hardworking, middle-class families and students 
across America and students in my hometown, which is a college town 
with thousands and thousands of students enrolled in the community 
college and at the University of South Florida.
  There's great debate in Washington today over the economy and how we 
are going to provide relief to middle-class families. One of the 
answers is to address the soaring costs of attending college and keep 
the doors to a higher education open by making college affordable 
through grants and low-rate loans.
  A college diploma is a critical step toward a higher paying job and 
success in life, and one of the best investments we can make for the 
future of our great Nation is to ensure that the doors to our colleges 
and universities remain wide open.
  In my home State of Florida, unfortunately, we're undergoing a budget 
crisis, and the funding for higher education unfortunately has been 
targeted for millions and millions of dollars of cuts. This has 
resulted in the university and community college doors being kept shut 
for many students.
  One student in my hometown in Tampa from Jefferson High School, Gabby 
Rodriguez, has a 4.3 grade point average, but because of the budget 
cuts in the State of Florida and the lack of student financial 
assistance, she may have to go to college out of State or put her 
college dreams on hold entirely.
  So the passage of this crucial bill could not come at a better time. 
With passage of this bill, we will increase need-based aid and make the 
Federal Pell Grants more available to students.

                              {time}  1045

  You know, last year the Congress battled the Bush administration over 
the ability of first-generation students to attend college and work 
through the Upward Bound initiative. Well, we are focused on better 
jobs for the future, so we will strengthen the Upward Bound program 
through this bill today. We are focused on better jobs for the future, 
so we will provide loan forgiveness for graduates who decide to enter 
public service careers in areas of national need, such as early 
childhood educators, child welfare workers, and firefighters. We are 
focused on better jobs for the future, so we encourage students' 
interest in math, science, and technology through this bill.
  Through the leadership of Chairman George Miller, who is a hero for 
college students throughout America, Congressman John Tierney, Ranking 
Member McKeon, Bobby Scott, Lynn Woolsey, all of the members of the 
Education and Labor Committee, I salute them and thank them for their 
leadership because, Mr. Speaker, this is an important bipartisan 
milestone for education.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  A decade ago, the last time we renewed the Higher Education Act, it 
was debated under an open rule that allowed every Member the 
opportunity for full participation. On an issue so important to our 
Nation's continued success, I would expect nothing less than a full and 
open debate. I am disappointed that the same opportunity was not 
provided today. Sadly, suppressed debate is all we have known under 
this majority.
  I am also disappointed that misuse of the budget reconciliation 
process last year has left us with a bill that includes many important 
reforms, but does not provide a full review of the largest financial 
aid programs.
  Because the budget reconciliation bill contained drastic and far-
reaching changes to Federal student loans, the bill before us pays very 
little consideration to student lending. Unfortunately, circumstances 
surrounding the loan programs have changed in the last several months, 
and it looks like now is exactly the time when we should be looking at 
these programs.
  We are all painfully aware of the collapse in the subprime mortgage 
market. Those financial insecurities have spread the higher quality 
assets, including the asset-backed equities that are often used to 
finance Federal and non-Federal student loans.
  As we face these market insecurities, the full extent of the cuts 
enacted through last year's budget reconciliation bill are just 
beginning to be understood. Taken together, it appears our Federal loan 
program may be facing a perfect storm, yet here we are with a 
comprehensive higher education renewal that does not consider the 
student loan programs.
  I had hoped to offer an amendment today that would acknowledge the 
challenges facing the loan program. Although my amendment did not call 
for any immediate changes within the credit markets or the loan program 
structure, a sense of Congress urged the Secretary of Education to 
closely monitor the student loan marketplace so that if in the near 
future these market insecurities translate into a loss of loan 
availability, we could act quickly to protect the interests of 
students.
  Mr. Speaker, I won't be offering that amendment today; it was not 
ruled in order. Somehow, a sense of the Congress acknowledging the very 
real challenges facing our Nation's largest financial aid program was 
deemed unfit for consideration.
  We also won't be considering an amendment to protect students' free 
speech rights on campus, or either of two amendments to ensure 
taxpayers aren't forced to provide assistance under this bill to 
illegal immigrants. Nor will we take up any of the other Republican 
amendments that were stifled by a heavy-handed majority.
  Mr. Speaker, we're here to consider a bipartisan bill that I strongly 
support. In fact, the bill was voted out of committee with a vote of 
45-0. Yet even on a bipartisan college access bill, the majority could 
not bring itself to allow a fair and open debate.
  Just four of the 27 amendments we'll consider today were offered by 
Republicans, about 15 percent. For every 6 minutes we spend debating 
Democrat proposals today, the Republican ideas will be given 60 
seconds. Democrats will claim that's how we ran things when Republicans 
were in charge. But during this same debate in 2006, when we considered 
comprehensive higher education reform, more than one-third

[[Page H631]]

of the amendments considered on the floor were offered by Democrats.
  This is not just a problem of amendments being made in order. 
Republicans were blocked from even submitting amendments just 3 minutes 
after the deadline Tuesday morning. Key Republican proposals were 
rejected from consideration some 30 hours and 57 minutes before the 
Rules Committee met. Is this a majority that strictly adheres to 
deadlines no matter what the circumstances? Evidently not, at least not 
when they stand to benefit from a little flexibility.
  The listing of amendments on the Rules Committee Web site was 
modified at 4:39 p.m. Wednesday, just 21 minutes before the committee 
met. Fully 20 of the Democrats' amendments were modified or withdrawn 
after the submission deadline.
  I cannot help but ask, Why are Republicans being shut out of a 
bipartisan bill? Why is the majority only permitting Republican 
amendments that align with their policy goals? Is this payback because 
Republicans plan to demand a vote today on earmark reform?
  Mr. Speaker, this is an unreasonable rule that taints the 
bipartisanship of the underlying bill, and I strongly oppose it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), also a member of 
the committee.
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank my distinguished friend from Washington State.
  A little bit of irony here. I had an amendment that we fully debated 
in committee on students' free speech, and I wanted to offer it today. 
But isn't it ironic that while I was trying to argue for a student bill 
of rights and free speech, that we're not allowed to have free speech 
and a bill of rights in the United States Congress. How in the world, 
when we're having 27 amendments, and this amendment was overwhelmingly 
supported by our party, we only have, out of 27, four from Republicans, 
and two of those are Republican opposed. If we have time for 27 
amendments, why can't we have an amendment for free speech? I just 
don't understand.
  I never understood the opposition to the amendment, but what an 
insult to the American people that when we want to debate whether there 
should be a student bill of rights on campuses, which is being adopted 
and introduced in many places around the country, that the United 
States Congress can't even debate on the House floor a free speech 
amendment and protection for speech in colleges. This is an outrage, an 
embarrassment, and a humiliation to the Rules Committee. Why 27 
amendments, but not one on a student bill of rights? Could it be that 
it's a difficult vote?
  David Horowitz, and I will insert into the Record an article, ``In 
Defense of Intellectual Diversity,'' has been a champion of this 
problem. Now, we had a very interesting debate in committee. The 
chairman of the committee said that some of these students who have 
been complaining should grow up, and cited a case of where he 
struggled. And certainly when I was a college student in the late 
sixties and early seventies and wore a button ``I'm proud to be a 
square'' when most of America wasn't proud to be a square, I certainly 
had my share of debates, my share of harassment, my share of being 
yelled down, trying to offer a differing view than the view that was 
popular in the late sixties. And some of that goes with being on a 
college campus, but there are examples all over this country where 
intellectual diversity, intellectual alternatives are being stymied in 
academia. This amendment would try to protect those rights.
  Some of it's from the far left; a lot of it is on the conservative 
side right now. In fact, next Tuesday Ben Stein has a movie coming out, 
``Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,'' that will debut about one of 
those debates in science. Where there is an effort to stamp it out, 
particularly when you get into government, economics, sociology, 
philosophy, and so on, increasingly there is a rigidity; and if you 
disagree you are harassed, your grades can be altered, your papers can 
be given back to you, speeches and alternative speakers are shouted 
down. And, yes, there are nominal processes to do it, but if there are 
nominal processes to do it, what is wrong? This amendment says, for 
example, ``Individual colleges and universities have different missions 
and each institution should design its academic program in accordance. 
Within the context of institutional mission, the college should promote 
intellectual pluralism and facilitate free and open exchange of 
ideas.'' Well, that's not very controversial.
  ``D, Students should not be intimidated, harassed, discouraged from 
speaking out, discriminated against, or subject to official sanctions 
because of their personal, political, ideological or religious 
beliefs.'' Isn't that a terrible, risky, difficult vote?
  ``Students should be treated equally and fairly, including evaluation 
and grading, without regard to or consideration of their personal 
political views or ideological beliefs.'' That's just awful. How could 
we vote on that in the United States Congress to say there would be no 
persecution? There is no ``whereas'' clauses here. There's nothing in 
here that says campuses are liberal, campuses are conservative. We 
don't have any ``whereas'' clauses that are insulting in here. There is 
nothing in here that's partisan; I just read you the guts of the bill.
  Why can't we vote on this? Why is this opposed? Why is it opposed so 
much that we're not even allowed to debate it on the floor of Congress? 
How can we say, in a higher education bill, that we believe in inquiry, 
that we believe in searching for knowledge, but when we had an 
amendment to protect students who might have a difference of opinion 
that we wouldn't even allow a vote?

               [From the Chronicle Review, Feb. 13, 2004]

                  In Defense of Intellectual Diversity

                          (By David Horowitz)

       I am the author of the Academic Bill of Rights, which many 
     student governments, colleges and universities, education 
     commissions, and legislatures are considering adopting. 
     Already, the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a 
     version as legislation, and the Senate should soon follow 
     suit.
       State governments are also starting to rally around efforts 
     to protect student rights and intellectual diversity on 
     campuses: In Colorado, the State Senate president, John K. 
     Andrews Jr., has been very concerned about the issue, and 
     State Rep. Shawn Mitchell has just introduced legislation 
     requiring public institutions to create and publicize 
     processes for protecting students against political bias. 
     Lawmakers in four other states have also expressed a strong 
     interest in legislation of their own, based on some version 
     of the Academic Bill of Rights. Students for Academic Freedom 
     is working to secure the measure's adoption by student 
     governments and university administrations on 105 member 
     campuses across the country (http://
www.studentsforacademicfreedom
.org).
       The Academic Bill of Rights is based squarely on the almost 
     100-year-old tradition of academic freedom that the American 
     Association of University Professors has established. The 
     bill's purposes are to codify that tradition; to emphasize 
     the value of ``intellectual diversity,'' already implicit in 
     the concept of academic freedom; and, most important, to 
     enumerate the rights of students to not be indoctrinated or 
     otherwise assaulted by political propagandists in the 
     classroom or any educational setting.
       Although the AAUP has recognized student rights since its 
     inception, however, most campuses have rarely given them the 
     attention or support they deserve. In fact, it is safe to say 
     that no college or university now adequately defends them. 
     Especially recently, with the growing partisan activities of 
     some faculty members and the consequent politicization of 
     some aspects of the curriculum, that lack of support has 
     become one of the most pressing issues in the academy.
       Moreover, because I am a well-known conservative and have 
     published studies of political bias in the hiring of college 
     and university professors, critics have suggested that the 
     Academic Bill of Rights is really a ``right-wing plot'' to 
     stack faculties with political conservatives by imposing 
     hiring quotas. Indeed, opponents of legislation in Colorado 
     have exploited that fear, writing numerous op-ed pieces about 
     alleged right-wing plans to create affirmative-action 
     programs for conservative professors.
       Nothing could be further from the truth. The actual intent 
     of the Academic Bill of Rights is to remove partisan politics 
     from the classroom. The bill that I'm proposing explicitly 
     forbids political hiring or firing: ``No faculty shall be 
     hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of 
     his or her political or religious beliefs.'' The bill thus 
     protects all faculty members--left-leaning critics of the war 
     in Iraq as well as right-leaning proponents of it, for 
     example--from being penalized for their political beliefs. 
     Academic liberals should be as eager to support that 
     principle as conservatives.
       Some liberal faculty members have expressed concern about a 
     phrase in the bill of rights that singles out the social 
     sciences and humanities and says hiring in those

[[Page H632]]

     areas should be based on competence and expertise and with 
     a view toward ``fostering a plurality of methodologies and 
     perspectives.'' In fact, the view that there should be a 
     diversity of methodologies is already accepted practice. 
     Considering that truth is unsettled in these discipline 
     areas, why should there not be an attempt to nurture a 
     diversity of perspectives as well?
       Perhaps the concern is that ``fostering'' would be 
     equivalent to ``mandating.'' The Academic Bill of Rights 
     contains no intention, implicit or otherwise, to mandate or 
     produce an artificial ``balance'' of intellectual 
     perspectives. That would be impossible to achieve and would 
     create more mischief than it would remedy. On the other hand. 
     a lack of diversity is not all that difficult to detect or 
     correct.
       By adopting the Academic Bill of Rights, an institution 
     would recognize scholarship rather than ideology as an 
     appropriate academic enterprise. It would strengthen 
     educational values that have been eroded by the unwarranted 
     intrusion of faculty members' political views into the 
     classroom. That corrosive trend has caused some academics to 
     focus merely on their own partisan agendas and to abandon 
     their responsibilities as professional educators with 
     obligations to students of all political persuasions. Such 
     professors have lost sight of the vital distinction between 
     education and indoctrination, which--as the AAUP recognized 
     in its first report on academic freedom, in 1915--is not a 
     legitimate educational function.
       Because the intent of the Academic Bill of Rights is to 
     restore academic values, I deliberately submitted it in draft 
     form to potential critics who did not share my political 
     views. They included Stanley Fish, dean of the College of 
     Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at 
     Chicago; Michael Berube, a professor of English at 
     Pennsylvania State University at University Park; Todd 
     Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia 
     University; and Philip Klinkner, a professor of government at 
     Hamilton College. While their responses differed, I tried to 
     accommodate the criticisms I got, for example deleting a 
     clause in the original that would have required the 
     deliberations of all committees in charge of hiring and 
     promotion to be recorded and made available to a ``duly 
     constituted authority.''
       I even lifted wholesale one of the bill's chief tenets--
     that colleges and professional academic associations should 
     remain institutionally neutral on controversial political 
     issues--from an article that Dean Fish wrote for The 
     Chronicle (``Save the World on Your Own Time,'' January 23, 
     2003). He has also written an admirable book, Professional 
     Correctness (Clarendon Press, 1995), which explores the 
     inherent conflict between ideological thinking and 
     scholarship.
       Since the Academic Bill of Rights is designed to clarify 
     and extend existing principles of academic freedom, its 
     opponents have generally been unable to identify specific 
     provisions that they find objectionable. Instead, they have 
     tried to distort the plain meaning of the text. The AAUP 
     itself has been part of that effort, suggesting in a formal 
     statement that the bill's intent is to introduce political 
     criteria for judging intellectual diversity and, thus, to 
     subvert scholarly standards. It contends that the bill of 
     rights ``proclaims that all opinions are equally valid,'' 
     which ``negates an essential function of university 
     education.'' The AAUP singles out for attack a phrase that 
     refers to ``the uncertainty and unsettled character of all 
     human knowledge'' as the rationale for respecting diverse 
     viewpoints in curricula and reading lists in the humanities 
     and social sciences. The AAUP claims that ``this premise . . 
     . is anti-thetical to the basic scholarly enterprise of the 
     university, which is to establish and transmit knowledge.''
       The association's statements are incomprehensible. After 
     all, major schools of thought in the contemporary academy--
     pragmatism, postmodernism, and deconstructionism, to name 
     three--operate on the premise that knowledge is uncertain 
     and, at times, relative. Even the hard sciences, which do not 
     share such relativistic assumptions, are inspired to continue 
     their research efforts by the incomplete state of received 
     knowledge. The university's mission is not only to 
     transmit knowledge but to pursue it--and from all vantage 
     points. What could be controversial about acknowledging 
     that? Further, the AAUP's contention that the Academic 
     Bill of Rights threatens true academic standards by 
     suggesting that all opinions are equally valid is a red 
     herring, as the bill's statement on intellectual diversity 
     makes clear: ``Exposing students to the spectrum of 
     significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined 
     in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty.'' 
     (Emphasis added.)
       As the Academic Bill of Rights states, ``Academic 
     disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to 
     unsettled questions.'' That is common sense. Why not make it 
     university policy?
       The only serious opposition to the Academic Bill of Rights 
     is raised by those who claim that, although its principles 
     are valid, it duplicates academic-freedom guidelines that 
     already exist. Elizabeth Hoffman, president of the University 
     of Colorado System, for example, has personally told me that 
     she takes that position.
       But with all due respect, such critics are also mistaken. 
     Most universities' academic-freedom policies generally fail 
     to make explicit, let alone codify, the institutions' 
     commitment to intellectual diversity or the academic rights 
     of students. The institutions also do not make their policies 
     readily available to students--who, therefore, are generally 
     not even aware that such policies exist.
       For example, when I met with Elizabeth Hoffman, she 
     directed me to the University of Colorado's Web site, where 
     its academic-freedom guidelines are posted. Even if those 
     guidelines were adequate, posting them on an Internet site 
     does not provide sufficient protection for students, who are 
     unlikely to visit it. Contrast the way that institutions 
     aggressively promote other types of diversity guidelines--
     often establishing special offices to organize and enforce 
     all sorts of special diversity-related programs--to such a 
     passive approach to intellectual diversity.
       At Colorado's Web site, for example, one can read the 
     following: ``Sections of the AAUP's 1940 Statement of 
     Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure have been adopted 
     as a statement of policy by the Board of Regents.'' Few 
     people reading that article or visiting the site would 
     suspect that the following protection for students is 
     contained in the AAUP's 1940 statement: ``Teachers are 
     entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their 
     subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into 
     their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to 
     their subject.''
       Is there a college or university in America--including the 
     University of Colorado--where at least one professor has not 
     introduced controversial matter on the war in Iraq or the 
     Bush White House in a class whose subject matter is not the 
     war in Iraq, or international relations, or presidential 
     administrations? Yet intrusion of such subject matter, in 
     which the professor has no academic expertise, is a breach of 
     professional responsibility and a violation of a student's 
     academic rights.
       We do not go to our doctors' offices and expect to see 
     partisan propaganda posted on the doors, or go to hospital 
     operating rooms and expect to hear political lectures from 
     our surgeons. The same should be true of our classrooms and 
     professors, yet it is not. When I visited the political-
     science department at the University of Colorado at Denver 
     this year, the office doors and bulletin boards were 
     plastered with cartoons and statements ridiculing 
     Republicans, and only Republicans. When I asked President 
     Hoffman about that, she assured me that she would request 
     that such partisan materials be removed and an appropriate 
     educational environment restored. To the best of my 
     knowledge, that has yet to happen.
       Not everyone would agree about the need for such restraint, 
     and it should be said that the Academic Bill of Rights makes 
     no mention of postings and cartoons--although that does not 
     mean that they are appropriate. I refer to them only to 
     illustrate the problem that exists in the academic culture 
     when it comes to fulfilling professional obligations that 
     professors owe to all students. I would ask liberal 
     professors who are comfortable with such partisan 
     expressions how they would have felt as students seeking 
     guidance from their own professors if they had to walk a 
     gantlet of cartoons portraying Bill Clinton as a lecher, 
     or attacking antiwar protesters as traitors.
       The politicized culture of the university is the heart of 
     the problem. At Duke University this year, a history 
     professor welcomed his class with the warning that he had 
     strong ``liberal'' opinions, and that Republican students 
     should probably drop his course. One student did. Aided by 
     Duke Students for Academic Freedom, the young man then 
     complained. To his credit, the professor apologized. Although 
     some people on the campus said the professor had been joking, 
     the student clearly felt he faced a hostile environment. Why 
     should the professor have thought that partisanship in the 
     classroom was professionally acceptable in the first place?
       At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a 
     required summer-reading program for entering freshmen stirred 
     a controversy in the state legislature last fall. The 
     required text was Barbara Ehrenreich's socialist tract on 
     poverty in America, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in 
     America (Metropolitan Books, 2001). Other universities have 
     required the identical text in similar programs, and several 
     have invited Ehrenreich to campus to present her views under 
     the imprimatur of the institution and without rebuttal.
       That reflects an academic culture unhinged. When a 
     university requires a single partisan text of all its 
     students, it is a form of indoctrination, entirely 
     inappropriate for an academic institution. If many 
     universities had required Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal 
     Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (Vintage 
     Books, 1992) or Ann Coulter's Treason: Liberal Treachery From 
     the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003) as 
     their lone freshman-reading text, there would have been a 
     collective howl from liberal faculties, who would have 
     immediately recognized the inappropriateness of such 
     institutional endorsement of controversial views. Why not 
     require two texts, or four? (My stepson, who is a high-school 
     senior, was required to read seven texts during his summer 
     vacation.)
       The remedy is so simple. Requiring readings on more than 
     one side of a political controversy would be appropriate 
     educational policy and would strengthen, not weaken, the 
     democracy that supports our educational

[[Page H633]]

     system. Why is that not obvious to the administrators at 
     Chapel Hill and the other universities that have instituted 
     such required-reading programs? It's the academic culture, 
     stupid.

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to refresh 
the memory of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on past 
rules.
  The last time the higher education reauthorization bill was 
considered in the House was just 2 years ago, in the 109th Congress. 
It, too, was done under a structured amendment process using two rules. 
Those two structured rules allowed a total of 22 amendments out of the 
113 submitted, fewer than the rule we are offering today.
  This is a very fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it and 
the bill. The rule makes in order 27 amendments on a wide variety of 
important issues relating to the higher education of our Nation's youth 
and others seeking a post-secondary education. Members on both sides of 
the aisle will be able to offer amendments that they believe will 
further improve this already very bipartisan bill.
  This bill is one of the most bipartisan products of the 110th 
Congress, reported from the Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 
45-0. There is no arguing with those facts.
  And, Mr. Speaker, the benefits of higher education are undeniable for 
students, their families, and for our country and society at large. As 
a nation, we recognize this, having always been a global standard 
bearer and our high regard for the merits of higher education. Reaching 
the American Dream of leading a secure and fulfilling life is a goal 
that we can make achievable when we open the doors of college to all.
  The fact that this bill passed 45-0 out of the Education Committee is 
a testament to the great work that the committee has done on this bill 
and to the fact that we care tremendously about the future of our 
children.
  Listening to parents from my district, Mr. Speaker, and across the 
country, I hear about how the ability to send their children to college 
weighs on their minds. And talking to professors, counselors, and 
administrators at the University of Akron, Loraine County Community 
College, and other schools across Ohio, I also know that student debt 
is a tremendous factor in determining which professions our students 
are choosing to enter.
  Nearly two-thirds of all students at 4-year colleges nationwide 
graduate with loan debt these days, with the average amount of debt 
surpassing $15,000. This bill we're passing goes a long way to changing 
that distressing fact.
  By increasing aid and encouraging colleges to rein in tuition, this 
legislation will enable more students to pursue their passions and give 
back in service to their communities and our country.
  I am proud that this bill continues the work of this New Direction 
Congress in making necessary improvements for the workforce of 
tomorrow. We have seen the necessity of investing in stem education, 
and this legislation continues the effort we began last year in passing 
the innovation agenda by improving teacher training and development 
programs and focusing on recruiting teachers into high-demand science 
and technology fields.
  In today's global economy, it's essential that America's workforce 
remain competitive at an international level.
  Mr. Speaker, the Higher Education Act has not been reauthorized in a 
decade. The Senate has already passed a reauthorization, so we must act 
expediently to pass this vital bill so the President may sign it into 
law.
  I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
voting for this bill and supporting a brighter future for our students, 
our families, and our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend 
from Utah, the gentlelady made the point in her initial remarks when 
she was talking about the reauthorization 2 years ago that it was done 
in a bipartisan way and it was done successfully. We know that this 
process, the administration already has some problems with it. And 
while they haven't issued a veto threat, they have some concerns.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Washington 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, if you remember back in the 1960s when Volkswagens were 
very popular and they had this wonderful self-deprecating campaign 
going on for their advertising. For instance, putting a Volkswagen in a 
carport and the caption would read, ``It makes your house look 
bigger.'' My favorite one was taking a Volkswagen, ripping off the 
fenders, putting big tires on it, putting even a spoiler in the back, a 
painted stripe, jacking it up on the back, and the caption read ``Is 
nothing sacred?'' Sometimes while I've been here in Congress, I have 
often wondered if nothing is actually sacred.
  Education, even higher education, is still the purview of States. The 
10th amendment gives them that parameter. And yet it is possible that 
we often ignore that. It is possible to soup up a Volkswagen, but we 
never should. It is also possible for us to tell States how to run 
their policy on education and how to appropriate their money to 
education, but it never should happen.
  The provision to which I object is called ``maintenance of effort.'' 
This is a provision that was added to the Budget Reconciliation Act, or 
was attempted to, and was removed. And most of the people in local 
government are surprised to see this effort coming back here in this 
particular bill. This was also not discussed in our committee to any 
detail.
  It is one of those things that the Rules Committee will always talk 
about how these things should be discussed in committee. But when we, 
in committee after committee, have major pieces of legislation held 
close to the vest and only brought forward only hours or days before 
the actual markup in a committee, oftentimes we find things within 
those bills that are surprising. This provision was found in this bill, 
and it was not one of those pleasant surprises.
  The maintenance of effort amendment that was put into this bill 
requires the States to maintain a 5-year rolling average of their 
funding for higher education, and if they ever go under that 5-year 
average of education, their LEAP funds, which are now renamed in this 
particular bill, will be yanked from those States, unless they go to 
the Department of Education and grovel before the Secretary of 
Education to try to get some kind of penitence so they can get those 
moneys back.
  This proposal is counterproductive. We all know that States have 
cyclical budget years like we do. In 2002, the average State increase 
in higher education was 1.8 percent. In 2006, it was up 9.3 percent. If 
I was a State legislator again responsible for those budgets, realizing 
this proposal was in here, when we had a chance to add more money for 
higher education, knowing we would now be judged on a 5-year rolling 
average, there is no way I would ever put that kind of increase in 
there. This is going to be counterproductive to actually States funding 
their higher education system.
  But even if this policy worked, we should not do it. H.L. Mencken 
once said, ``There is always an easy solution to every human problem. 
It's neat, it's plausible, and it's wrong.'' Even if this Federal stick 
to States was effective, it is wrong. It is wrong to tell States how 
they will appropriate their money. It is wrong to give them more 
Federal mandates.
  Now, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Miller, will soften this 
proposal in the manager's amendment. That is good but doesn't nearly go 
far enough. Mr. Hoekstra had a perfect compromise amendment that was 
refused to be considered by the Rules Committee on a technicality. It 
is wrong. It should have been considered. And I had an amendment to 
remove this, to put it back to the status quo so we could have a chance 
in the committee to discuss this issue, and it was not allowed to be 
made in order. That is wrong. The proposal is wrong. The discussion 
process is wrong. If we're not going to discuss these issues in the 
committee, it should be the purview of allowing people to come here on 
the floor and discuss these issues, which are not just

[[Page H634]]

technical in nature but philosophical in nature, of what the Federal 
Government ought to do and what it ought not to do. This particular 
provision in here should be discussed.
  We should know full well what we are doing to States if we move 
forward in that area. And for the Rules Committee not to make that in 
order, I think, is wrong.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  This is a very important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. We all 
know, and I was happy to hear my friend in Ohio talk about, the 
importance of our global competitiveness and we have to have the best 
educated people as we proceed to make sure that we can compete in that 
global economy. But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the process around 
which we are considering this very important legislation is just plain 
wrong.
  We had 61 amendments that were submitted to us in the Rules 
Committee. Now, the last time that this was successfully authorized, as 
Mr. Hastings has pointed out to our colleagues, was 10 years ago. It 
was done under a modified open rule.
  We had four Democrats sit before us on one of the panels last night, 
and they complimented the Rules Committee members for the hard work. 
And the very distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules proceeded to 
talk about how life was tantamount to a living hell when we as 
Republicans were in control versus this great new day that we have. 
Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you just a little bit about this great 
new day that we have.
  There have been more than double, I repeat that, more than double the 
number of closed rules in the first session of the 110th Congress and 
during this month of January leading up to the first of February than 
we had in the first session and leading up to the first of February in 
the 109th Congress, more than double the number of closed rules. And as 
I said, the last time we authorized this bill was in 1998, and it was 
done under a modified open rule. Yes, there was an attempt two 
Congresses ago to do it, and when we had a structured rule, it failed. 
Why don't those colleagues of ours who are in charge learn from the 
mistake of having not done this under an open amendment process?
  So though we continue to hear, Mr. Speaker, that this is a great new 
day and all these wonderful changes have taken place, we actually have 
had Democrats and Republicans, Democrats and Republicans, prevented 
from improving this bill.
  Now, Mr. Hastings correctly pointed to the fact that the 
administration has raised a number of concerns, dozens of new programs 
that are duplicative that are included in this bill. The President 
wants to work with us to improve this legislation. Doing it under the 
structure that we have today undermines the potential to see that 
happen.
  Reject this rule, and let's come back with at least a modified open 
rule so that we can proceed with something that in a bipartisan way we 
very much want to see happen.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), also a member of 
the Education and Labor Committee.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule.
  The bill under consideration today is a product of a multiyear, 
bipartisan effort by the Education and Labor Committee. Democrats and 
Republicans worked together to craft this legislation. Now the Rules 
Committee has thrown this bipartisan effort to the wind and revealed 
their true partisan colors that are flying there. By allowing 20 
Democrat amendments and only four Republican amendments, the Rules 
Committee has effectively announced that the minority party is not to 
be a player. Folks, it isn't fair. It's not a democracy.
  I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee earlier this week. 
But my colleagues will not even have the chance to consider its merits 
because it was not made in order by the Rules Committee.
  It is a particularly sad statement, given the nature of my amendment. 
On January 29, the City of Berkeley passed resolutions that, among 
other things, state that the United States Marine Corps recruiting 
office ``is not welcome in'' their ``city, and if recruiters choose to 
stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.''
  I am appalled.
  My amendment addresses this action by denying Federal funding to 
colleges that contract with an entity that takes action to discriminate 
or condones discrimination against the military by denying equal public 
access. The amendment essentially holds colleges and universities 
accountable for maintaining agreements or contracts with entities that 
allow this open discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, during the Vietnam era, and I'm old enough to not only 
remember but to have experienced it, many of our servicemembers and 
veterans received shameful treatment at the hands of those who opposed 
our Nation's foreign policy. We must protect our current servicemembers 
from the same treatment by showing that the Berkeley City Council's 
appalling behavior is unacceptable in this great Nation. Demonizing the 
men and women serving our country in the military, as demonstrated by 
the Berkeley City Council, has no place in our Nation's political 
discourse.
  As a graduate of the ROTC program and a 25-year veteran of the Marine 
Corps, I am profoundly disappointed with the appalling actions of the 
Berkeley City Council. Institutions that continue to maintain contracts 
and agreements with this city are, in effect, condoning this 
discriminatory and unjust treatment of our servicemembers.
  They deserve better from us, Mr. Speaker. This structured rule 
excluding my amendment denies this body the opportunity to reaffirm our 
strong support for the men and women who so honorably and bravely 
defend our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive 
rule.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), former member of 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise not in opposition to the bill. I think there are 
some good things in the bill. I was a former member of the Education 
and Workforce Committee. I know our ranking member, Mr. McKeon, is a 
supporter of the bill. I rise in strong opposition to this rule, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The gentlewoman on the Rules Committee on the majority side, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio, has mentioned a couple of things in her remarks, 
talking about what we Republicans did when we controlled this body and, 
indeed, the Rules Committee and how restrictive we may have been. But 
what I want to remind her is that I sat on that Rules Committee during 
that time, and I can remember the comments that were made from the 
minority, the then Democratic minority, that if they had an opportunity 
to control this place, then rules would be open and fair and people 
would be treated fair so that each Member would have an opportunity. 
They didn't say, Well, when we get the majority, we're going to stick 
it to you just like you've stuck it to us. So I think they should live 
by what they said they would do.
  And the other thing I want to point out to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
is that she talked about the bipartisanship on this bill, a 45-0 vote. 
Well, 45 Members of this body is 10 percent, and 90 percent of us don't 
get an opportunity to speak on the bill and to offer what I think are 
very good amendments. Now, 47 were submitted; 27 were made in order. 
But how many Republican amendments? It was 4 out of 27.
  Mine wasn't one of them, and I had a very good amendment, Mr. 
Speaker. This is the only opportunity I get to

[[Page H635]]

talk about it. It's a bipartisan amendment.
  Basically, Mr. Speaker, this amendment deals with FERPA, the Family 
Education Privacy Rights Act of 1974. The tragedy at Virginia Tech 
where we lost so many lives was, I think, because colleges and 
universities misinterpret that law. And my amendment would simply say 
that if a parent lists a child, a student, on their tax return as a 
dependent, even though they might be over age 18 or maybe they are a 
junior and age 20, but if they are a dependent as verified by the tax 
return, then those parents should have access to academic records, 
disciplinary records, drinking on campus, whatever. And many of us, I'm 
sure, have had college students where because of FERPA we never could 
find out how our youngsters were doing until they were in dire trouble, 
maybe flunking out of school or having a substance abuse problem. I 
commend Representative Tim Murphy for his work in regard to mental 
health issues along this same line. But this was a very good amendment, 
Mr. Speaker, and one that I would think Democrats would want to join 
Republicans and vice versa and have unanimous support of that.
  So I am very disappointed. I am very disappointed not only for myself 
but for the American people, my constituents, students, and parents all 
across this country.
  So, again, it's not the bill that I am opposed to. I am opposed to 
this restrictive rule.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this rule so that we can amend it or offer an amendment on earmark 
reform.
  As we heard the President last week speak about earmarks in the State 
of the Union, to my knowledge, no President has ever talked about 
something that's ordinarily a House and Senate procedure in his State 
of the Union comments. But in it he declared war, you may say, on 
earmarks.
  Now, we believe in the prerogative of the legislative branch to put 
things in the budget and take things out of the budget. Indeed, the 
White House earmarks all the time. But the reality is, Mr. Speaker, we 
need to have a discussion on earmarks. We do need to stop the practice 
of air-dropping earmarks into conference committees, earmarks that 
haven't been debated, discussed, or had hearings held on them at the 
House or on the Senate level. I think that's the first step. But I 
think there is a whole lot of other things we should do.
  For example, there are earmarks routinely in the transportation bill.

                              {time}  1115

  There are earmarks in trade bills, earmarks all over the place in any 
tax bill. We believe that earmarking should be reformed on all 
committee levels. We always talk about appropriations, but there are 
lots of committees that do it. If we allow for it, we will set up a 
joint bicameral, bipartisan select committee on earmarks that will come 
up with recommendations on how to do a better job with them. This would 
require, or we would urge, a moratorium on earmarks until the select 
committee comes back to Congress with recommendations.
  But there are so many things that we could do that would improve this 
process: for example, financial disclosure on earmarks, does the Member 
have anything at stake to personally gain; transparency so that when an 
earmark is added on a subcommittee or full committee or floor level, 
transparency so that the earmark is put in and Members have an 
opportunity to ask why is that in there, who put it in there, what does 
it do and why should the people of Idaho have their tax dollars go to 
something that happens in Florida. We want to be able to have that 
debate. I think that that is so important.
  And, again, there are tax loopholes that are basically industry-
specific earmarks. Who puts them? At least with appropriations right 
now you know who puts them in, but on tax earmarks you do not. The 
White House does all kinds of earmarking, and we and certainly the 
press let them get away with it because for some reason they are the 
White House. But under the constitutional concept of equal branches of 
government, particularly when spending bills originate in the House, we 
have the right to earmark; but we should all be measured by the same 
yardstick.
  The other thing that is important is what is the impact of earmarks 
on the budget. When you take an earmark out of a bill, it does not 
reduce the bill. Is that something that we should look at? There are 
all types of things that a bipartisan, bicameral committee could look 
at that would improve this process. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule 
so that we can come back and have this opportunity to vote on this 
amendment.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I have only one remaining speaker who will 
close debate for this side. Because we have the right to close, I will 
reserve the time until the gentleman has closed and yielded back his 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been talked about about this unfair closed rule 
dealing with this underlying issue, and that seems to be a recurring 
pattern, and I wish that it would change, but I don't hold out any hope 
that that will happen. But, Mr. Speaker, since House earmark rules were 
changed just last year, loopholes and concerns have been raised. 
Questions remain such as what is and what is not an earmark; when do 
earmark rules apply and how are earmark rules enforced? We have seen 
examples of Members trying to enforce earmark rules only to be told 
they can't because the rules don't apply, and we have seen earmarks 
repeatedly air-dropped into bills at the last minute that were not 
subject to transparency or scrutiny.
  Time and time again, Republicans have come to the floor advocating 
for additional earmark reforms, including stronger transparency and 
enforceability. Taxpayers also recognize the earmark process is broken 
and are outraged with wasteful spending. This has lead to an erosion of 
public confidence in Congress and could explain part of the reason why 
Congress' approval ratings are so low. It is clear Americans want 
Congress to act now and fix the broken earmark process. An earmark 
timeout is needed in order to get our fiscal house in order and restore 
public confidence.
  In January, House Republicans united together and called on House 
Democrats to join us in an immediate moratorium on earmarks and the 
appointment of a bipartisan, bicameral joint committee to reform the 
earmark process and eliminate wasteful spending. House Democrat leaders 
were invited to join with Republicans and take the sensible bicameral 
course of action and reform a broken earmark process, but Democrats 
have remained silent and chosen to continue the broken status quo. So, 
today, I am going to give all Members an opportunity to show their 
support for a bipartisan solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to vote against the previous 
question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately 
consider House Concurrent Resolution 263, which would establish a Joint 
Select Committee on Earmark Reform. The Joint Select Committee on 
Earmark Reform would hold hearings and make recommendations for the 
comprehensive reform of the earmark process. The resolution would also 
prohibit bills, resolutions, and conference reports containing earmarks 
requested by Members of Congress or the administration to be considered 
until the joint select committee has filed its report.
  Considering and adopting House Concurrent Resolution 263 today is a 
sensible, bipartisan solution that will bring genuine accountability 
and transparency to the spending process and will restore taxpayer 
trust and the integrity of Congress.
  Let me be clear: with my motion, every Member of this House will have 
a chance to publicly vote and take a stand and end earmark abuse and 
earmark secrecy. Every Member will vote on whether they believe the 
earmark process must be reformed.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we will do all that we can on our side to challenge 
the

[[Page H636]]

leaders to adopt this resolution. Until a moratorium or bipartisan 
committee is in place, House Republicans have adopted already a series 
of earmark reforms standards that we will adhere to, including barring 
Members from using taxpayer money named after themselves and 
prohibiting earmarks from being air-dropped into bills at the last 
minute to avoid transparency.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment, the letter sent from the Republican leaders to Speaker 
Pelosi on January 25, 2008, and extraneous materials immediately prior 
to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues 
to join me today in acting to permanently change the way in which 
Washington spends taxpayers' money. Vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so we can address this very important House concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations (Mr. Obey), who will close for our side.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, to listen to the last two speakers, one would 
think that they had Rip Van Winkled their way through the last year in 
this House. For the Republican Party leadership to belatedly give us 
lectures on earmarks is, in my view, akin to reformed alcoholics giving 
lectures on temperance.
  The higher education bill being debated today is funded through the 
Labor-H appropriation bill. In fiscal year 1995, the last year I 
chaired that subcommittee, that bill contained virtually no earmarks. 
By the year 2000, that same bill contained 491 earmarks; and by 2006, 
that bill had 3,031 earmarks totaling $1.2 billion.
  The previous Republican leadership was notorious for using earmarks 
as enticements in order to get their membership to vote for bills that 
individuals otherwise would not be inclined to vote for. For example, 
newspapers at the time reported that the previous Republican leadership 
used earmarks in the Transportation authorization bill as rewards for 
several Republican Members to switch their votes and agreed to support 
the Medicare part D provision that forbade the Federal Government from 
negotiating with the drug industry to provide lower costs for seniors 
under Medicare.
  Under the Republican leadership, the cost of the earmarks quadrupled, 
and we were treated to stories about Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Ney, Mr. 
Abramoff abusing the process, as well as several other.
  When Democrats took over the House, until we could reform the 
process, we suspended earmarks for a year, over the fierce objections 
of as many Members of the Republican Party as we saw in my own party.
  In response to demands from both parties, after we reformed the 
process, we then resumed the earmarking process with the expressed 
intention of cutting in half the cost of earmarks in non-project 
accounts. We made no such commitments for accounts that are by their 
nature project-based because to do so would gut the very purpose of the 
bills under consideration.
  For example, the Army Corps budget is by its nature project-based. In 
fiscal 2006, the administration sent up a budget request for the Army 
Corps containing 984 projects. Of the final amount provided by the 
Corps, 86 percent of the projects were administration-requested 
earmarks. The Corps is an interesting example. The administration 
argues that they have a system for selecting projects and that they 
only select projects that score a 3 or better on their scale. However, 
in 2006, there were 16 projects requested by the administration that 
did not even qualify for funding based on the administration's own 
criteria.
  After all the shouting was over last year, we essentially met our 
promise, cutting nonproject earmarks by 43 percent after negotiations 
with the Senate, cutting it from $16 billion down to $9 billion. So we 
came pretty doggone close to our goal. I would have preferred a larger 
reduction than 50 percent, but the 43 percent reduction is a 43 percent 
larger reduction than any Republican Congress ever produced, and we did 
it under a reform process.
  At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the new Democratic majority 
passed unprecedented new rules that required the listing of the 
sponsors of every earmark, that required that any Member of Congress 
requesting an earmark disclose in writing the name and address of the 
intended recipient, the purpose of the earmark, and required that 
Members certify that he or she had no financial interest in the 
project.
  We also required that all matters before a conference committee 
including earmarks must be subjected to full and open debate and that 
no item might be added to the conference report after the conference 
committee had adjourned, as has happened many times in the past.
  As we moved forward with earmarks last year, I brought a motion to 
the floor to see if Members wanted to eliminate all earmarks. That 
motion failed by a vote of 53-369, with a majority of both parties 
voting against it.
  I am assuming they did that because an overwhelming number of 
honorable Members on both sides of the aisle believe that Members 
should not lose the ability to fund priority items for their districts 
because of the scurrilous behavior of a handful of renegade Members.
  During House consideration of fiscal year 2008 appropriation bills, 
71 earmark-related amendments were debated and voted on in the floor, 
including three amendments to eliminate all earmarks from the bill 
under consideration and 68 amendments to eliminate particular earmarks. 
Of the 48 amendments on which record votes were taken, only 13 received 
the support of more than half the Republicans who voted. On those 13, 
the percentage of Republicans voting ``yes'' never exceeded 57 percent.
  Every Member knows that even if the House unilaterally suspends 
earmarks, the Senate will not follow suit. A firm majority on both 
sides will see to that. I have learned that lesson the hard way.
  One last point: the resolution introduced by our friends on the other 
side calls for the suspension of earmarks for 6 months until yet 
another group offers their suggestions for change. It is ironic indeed 
that that delay would force us to do the same thing that the Republican 
leadership so roundly criticized me for last year when I proposed to 
delay earmarks 1 month until we had more time to review them. The 
practical effect of the resolution which our Republican friends want to 
bring up to date, even though it is nongermane to this bill, would be 
to require the air-dropping of every single earmark in the entire 
Federal budget. It would guarantee that no earmarks could be discussed 
or debated while the bill was on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. It would then give you in spades what our friends on 
the Republican side said last year they wanted to avoid.
  I fail to see how requiring every single earmark in appropriation 
bills this year, I fail to see how requiring all of those earmarks to 
be air-dropped rather than debated when we consider the bills is 
reform. It moves exactly in the opposite direction of that which our 
Republican friends said we should move last year. So as far as I am 
concerned, the truth is this is not serious reform at all. It is a 
grandstanding attempt to escape the reputation of previous Congresses. 
If I had presided over those previous Congresses, I would be running 
away from their reputation just as fast as the minority appears to be 
today.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question on the 
rule, Members will allow consideration of H. Con. Res. 263, earmark 
reform legislation introduced by Jack Kingston, Zach Wamp, and myself.
  Quite frankly, our effort in the House to bring a level of 
transparency in the earmark process has yet to satisfy the American 
public. Congress holds the power of the purse and I don't believe the 
American public really wants us to cede that authority to the executive 
branch. And while I believe that the majority of earmarks are for 
purposes which help people, those Members who oppose earmarks have made 
some legitimate claims.
  H. Con. Res. 263 would help restore confidence in Congress by 
creating a Joint Select Committee on earmarks and place a moratorium on 
all earmarks while the panel undertakes its work. The Joint Select 
Committee

[[Page H637]]

(JSC) on Earmark Reform would be comprised of 16 members, evenly split 
between the House and Senate and Republicans and Democrats. The panel 
would examine the way earmarks are included in authorizing, 
appropriations and tax and tariff measures. Executive branch earmarks 
would also be studied. Reviewing earmarks in all bills considered by 
Congress is key.
  The House should place a moratorium on all earmarks until the Joint 
Select Committee has finished its work and we are able to put into 
place a rules system that restores the confidence of Americans that 
legislation is not loaded up with hidden special interest, wasteful 
spending. I strongly support earmark reform including listing names of 
sponsors of earmarks or specific line-item spending. But the rules must 
apply an equal standard in all legislation, appropriations as well as 
authorizing and tax bills, in disclosing earmark sponsors. It must be 
across-the-board in every bill, but it also must be a process of 
indisputable integrity and probity that is honest and authentic and in 
which the American people have absolute trust.
  Earmark reform should be a bipartisan issue that every member of 
Congress is concerned about.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, introduced 
by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative George 
Miller. This significant piece of legislation provides greater access 
to colleges and universities making higher education affordable for all 
Americans, not just the wealthy.
  A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and 
economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the 
maintenance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This 
legislation will increase funding to Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, as well as Hispanic and other minority-serving 
institutions, and it will expand college access and support for low-
income and minority students.
  This legislation contains provisions allowing students to receive 
Pell Grant scholarships year-round, and it increases the Pell Grant 
maximum to $9,000. In addition, it strengthens college readiness 
programs, namely the TRIO and GEAR UP college readiness and support 
programs for low-income and first-generation students. These increases 
will expand college access for low-income and minority students. The 
amendment offered by my colleagues Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson 
and Representative Don Young, expands upon current Pell Grant 
eligibility allowing children who lost a mother or father to our wars 
in Iraq or Afghanistan eligible for the maximum amount of Pell Grant 
assistance. In this age of global war on terror, it is imperative that 
we ensure that those left behind by those who the ultimate sacrifice 
for our great nation are given the greatest opportunity our country can 
provide. As such, I encourage all my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important amendment.
  In Texas, over 87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to 
approximately 48,000 African-Americans attending college or university. 
The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus the 
number of young people in college, particularly in the African-American 
community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education continues 
to be one of the main pathways to social and economic mobility, 
particularly in the African-American and Hispanic communities. I 
strongly support the amendment offered by my distinguished colleagues, 
Representatives Alcee Hastings and Representative Linda Sanchez, 
authorizing a nationwide program through the Department of Education to 
promote holistic community-centered partnerships aimed at mitigating 
gang violence and reducing recidivism rates among juvenile ex-offenders 
previously detained for gang-related offenses. This amendment a second-
chance to America's most vulnerable youth, I fully support the vision 
of this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation contains important provisions opening 
up even wider opportunities for our veterans by increasing college aid 
and housing aid for not only veterans, but their families. This 
legislation creates a new scholarship program for active duty military 
personnel and family members, including children and spouses of active 
duty military service members or veterans. It establishes support 
centers to help veterans succeed in college and graduate. Finally, it 
ensures fairness in student aid and housing aid for veterans, making it 
easier for them to attend college while also fulfilling their military 
service duties.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my strong support for an 
amendment introduced by my distinguished colleague, Congressman Danny 
Davis, restoring safeguards to student loan borrowers. Mr. Speaker, 
students who take out loans borrow money as part of their pursuit to 
better themselves and contribute to the advancement of our nation and 
economy. However, current bankruptcy laws apply the same severe 
standards to student borrowers that it applies to those trying to 
escape child support payments, alimony, overdue taxes, and criminal 
fines. Under Mr. Davis's amendment, government student loans and loans 
made by nonprofit entities would remain non-dischargeable; other 
student loans, made by for-profit banks and other lenders, would 
continue to be non-dischargeable for the first five years after they 
come due, and after that time they would be treated like other 
unsecured consumer loans in bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment, and to work to restore bankruptcy 
protection to private student loans.
  Understanding the federal application for Federal Student Aid can be 
challenging and complex even for the most knowledgeable parent. The 
College Opportunity and Affordability Act would streamline and simplify 
the application process giving families the tools they need to properly 
plan for their college expenses. This legislation will reform our 
higher education system ensuring students and their families have they 
information they need to understand their borrowing options when 
applying for federal and private loans.
  Mr. Speaker, as an active Member of the Committee on Homeland 
Security, I am extremely supportive of the provisions in this 
legislation that boost campus safety and disaster readiness plans. Last 
year's tragedy at Virginia Tech has illustrated the horror to which 
students might be exposed, and natural disasters in recent years have 
underlined the necessity of having campus disaster plans.
  This legislation helps all colleges develop and implement state-of-
the-art emergency systems and campus safety plans, and it requires that 
the Department of Education to develop and maintain a disaster plan in 
preparation for emergencies. In addition, this legislation creates a 
National Center for Campus Safety at the Department of Justice to work 
in collaboration with the COPS program. Finally, it establishes a 
disaster relief loan program, to help schools recover and rebuild in 
the event of a disaster.
  This important piece of legislation gives our youth, our veterans, 
and our families the opportunity to not only dream of attending college 
but actually realize that dream. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H.R. 4137.

                              {time}  1130

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 956 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 7. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. 
     Con. Res. 263) to establish the Joint Select Committee on 
     Earmark Reform, and for other purposes. The concurrent 
     resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution 
     to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, January 25, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: The earmark process in Congress has 
     become a symbol of a broken Washington. Wasteful pork-barrel 
     spending has outraged American families and eroded public 
     confidence in our institution. Both of our parties bear 
     responsibility for this failure.
       We write tonight to notify you that House Republicans 
     believe that the earmark system should be brought to an 
     immediate halt, and a bipartisan select committee should 
     immediately be established for the purpose of identifying 
     ways to bring fundamental change to the way in which 
     Washington spends taxpayers' money.
       In the spirit of bipartisan cooperation fostered by our 
     recent cooperation on a short- term economic growth package, 
     we offer our hope that you and the members of the House 
     Democratic Caucus will join House Republicans in supporting 
     these steps, which are urgently needed to begin the process 
     of fixing Washington's broken spending practices and 
     restoring trust between the American people and their elected 
     leaders. We respectfully ask that you and your Caucus 
     consider these urgently-needed actions and join us in 
     supporting them by the conclusion of your Caucus retreat next 
     week.
       In the interim, until a complete earmark moratorium is in 
     place and a bipartisan panel is formed to identify ways to 
     fix Washington's wasteful pork-barrel spending habits, House 
     Republicans will proceed with the adoption of a series of 
     earmark reform standards we will insist that all House 
     Republican members honor. These earmark reform standards 
     include:

[[Page H638]]

       No more ``monuments to me.'' Lawmakers should not use 
     taxpayer money to fund projects named after themselves.
       No more ``airdrops.'' The process by which Congress spends 
     the American people's money should be completely transparent. 
     Members of Congress should not circumvent transparency by 
     airdropping earmarks into bills in conference at the last 
     minute.
       No more ``fronts'' or ``pass-through'' entities. Taxpayer 
     funds should not be laundered through ``front'' operations 
     that mask their true recipients.
       Members of Congress who request earmarks should put forth a 
     plan detailing exactly how the money will be spent and why 
     they believe the use of taxpayer funding is justified. 
     Members of Congress who ``secure'' earmarks should place 
     these plans in the Congressional Record well in advance of 
     floor votes on those earmarks.
       To improve accountability, Members of Congress should 
     require outside earmark recipients to put up ``matching 
     funds'' where applicable so that American taxpayers do not 
     bear all the risk for such expenditures.
       The Executive Branch should be held accountable for its own 
     earmark practices. The Executive Branch asks for earmarks, 
     too, and has done so under administrations Democratic and 
     Republican alike. Members of Congress should hold present and 
     future Administrations accountable for the way in which 
     taxpayer-funded earmarks are used.
       It is our hope that you and your members will discuss and 
     move quickly to adopt similar standards during your Caucus 
     retreat.
       The American people believe Washington is broken. Bold 
     action must be taken to show them we can fix it. We believe 
     the actions House Republicans are taking today can be a 
     starting point for this kind of change. We hope that by the 
     end of your own Caucus retreat next week, you and all House 
     Democrats will join us in supporting an immediate moratorium 
     on all earmarks and the immediate formation of a bipartisan 
     panel for the purpose of identifying ways to end wasteful 
     pork-barrel spending in Washington and bring needed change to 
     the way in which Congress spends taxpayers' hard-earned 
     money.
           Sincerely,
     John A. Boehner,
       Republican Leader.
     Roy Blunt,
       Republican Whip.
     Adam Putnam,
       Chairman, Republican Conference.
     Kay Granger,
       Vice-Chair, Republican Conference.
     Tom Cole,
       Chairman, National Republican Congressional Committee.
     David Dreier,
       Ranking Republican, Committee on Rules.
     Thaddeus McCotter,
       Chairman, Republican Policy Committee.
     John Carter,
       Secretary, Republican Conference.
     Eric Cantor,
       Chief Deputy Whip.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution [and] has no substantive legislative 
     or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what 
     they have . . . always said. Listen to the definition of the 
     previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 956; suspending 
the rules and adopting House Concurrent Resolution 283; and suspending 
the rules and passing H.R. 4848.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 204, 
nays 196, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 32]

                               YEAS--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)

[[Page H639]]


     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Baldwin
     Blackburn
     Boucher
     Cramer
     Davis, Lincoln
     Everett
     Farr
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Graves
     Hare
     Hinojosa
     Lantos
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Manzullo
     Meek (FL)
     Moore (WI)
     Petri
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (WA)
     Tanner
     Towns
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                              {time}  1157

  Messrs. REHBERG, SHIMKUS, LINDER, HELLER of Nevada, Mrs. CUBIN, 
Messrs. ROGERS of Alabama, McCOTTER, STEARNS, BARTON of Texas, 
ELLSWORTH and YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 32, I was away from the 
Capitol attending a function in my capacity as Chairman of the House 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. Had I been present, I would have voted 
`'yea.''
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 32, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 32, on ordering the Previous 
Question on the Rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 4137, I was 
absent due to inclement weather grounding flights in Wisconsin. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 190, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                               YEAS--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Baldwin
     Blackburn
     Boucher
     Cramer
     Davis, Lincoln
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Graves
     Lantos
     Lowey
     Manzullo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Tanner
     Towns
     Woolsey
     Wynn


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1205

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 33, I was away from the 
Capitol attending a function in my capacity as Chairman of the House

[[Page H640]]

Veterans' Affairs Committee. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 33, H. Res. 956, the rule to 
provide consideration of H.R. 4137, I was absent due to inclement 
weather grounding flights from Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________