[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.''
____________________