[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2050-H2059]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 471, SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY
AND RESULTS ACT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 186 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 186
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
471) to reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program,
[[Page H2051]]
and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform;
(2) the further amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered
by Delegate Norton of the District of Columbia or her
designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from
Utah is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and
extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results
Act, sometimes called the SOAR Act, with 1 hour of general debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Further, this proposed rule will make in order all of the amendments
filed at the Rules Committee for H.R. 471. Admittedly, it was only one
amendment, but it is made in order, and it is offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). This is an
amendment that was presented in the committee and defeated on a 12-21
vote, but which will be reoffered here today as a substitute measure.
In short, this rule is about as fair as they potentially get.
Madam Speaker, this is a very open, straightforward rule that we will
be considering today, and I am pleased to stand before the House in
support of this rule as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 471. I
commend the sponsor of this legislation, the distinguished Speaker of
the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who has previously
served as chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, and he
understands education issues very, very well.
Madam Speaker, when the Cubs in the 1960s hired Leo Durocher to be
their manager, he was hired 2 years after they finished the season 49
games out of first place. In his short period of time there, he would
take them to the top, in which case, in 1969, a year that still hurts,
the Cubs were atop the National League for 155 days. Unfortunately, 7
of those days they were not on top included the last day of the season.
{time} 1230
But Durocher always said for his team that ``I make a great effort to
argue for the issues, but there are two things that are working against
me: the umpires and the rules.''
There will be a lot of people--some people--who will speak against
this motion, perhaps even this rule, and there are two things against
them: One is the unique constitutional relationship between Congress
and the District of Columbia that is not there, vis-a-vis the States;
and, number two, the underprivileged kids who benefit from this
underlying bill.
If I were to predict a preview of what will be taking place in the
debate, not only on the rule but also on the bill itself, I would
predict four themes will be appearing time after time after time.
One will be the concept of the constitutional mandate that is here.
When this Republic was established, the Constitution gave unique
jurisdictional responsibility to Congress over the District of
Columbia. That is not going to be a violation of their home rule
concept, but it is a responsibility of Congress. And there is great
precedent for this particular kind of provision.
In 1996, it is Congress that insisted upon a charter school program
in the District of Columbia. You will hear from both sides of the aisle
recognition of the great value that that program has, and justifiably
so. There is a waiting list in the District of Columbia for those
charter schools. This underlying bill increases the percentage of
funding going to charter schools in the District.
In 2003, an Opportunity Scholarship was instituted, at the insistence
of Congress. Again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the
opportunity; disadvantaged kids who wanted the opportunity that this
scholarship afforded them. In the appropriation bill for 2010,
unfortunately, Congress intervened again in a negative way and cut out
this Opportunity Scholarship program. There were a lot of upset
students and parents who couldn't believe how special interest politics
got in the way of their son's or daughter's dreams and was snatched
from their very hands. Their opportunity to make what they believe were
better educational choices was basically taken away from them.
H.R. 471 remedies this inequity. There were 216 kids at the time
scheduled to enter the program who were not allowed because of the
action of that particular appropriation bill. Those 216 kids, by this
particular legislation, will be given priority in once again being able
to apply for this Opportunity Scholarship.
A second discussion point that will be coming up repeatedly deals
with the efficacy of these programs. There will be conflicting data
that will be thrown from both sides as to the effectiveness. But I
think the one piece of information that can be clearly stated is that
91 percent of the kids enrolled in this Opportunity Scholarship
complete their coursework. That is 21 percent higher than a control
group of kids who were interested but were not allowed the opportunity
to complete this particular program. That completion rate is almost 32
percent higher than the regular completion rate of kids in the public
education system in Washington, D.C.
To quote Dr. Patrick Wolf, who was the lead investigator of the
evaluation mandated by Congress of this program, he concluded by
stating: ``The research evidence and the testimonials of parents
confirm that the District of Columbia is a better place because of the
Opportunity Scholarship program.''
The third issue that you will be hearing deals with the support of
this particular program. There will be dueling statistics that will be
coming at you during the course of the debate. Those in favor of the
bill will give lists of groups who are in favor of this particular
program. Those against the bill will give lists of groups and unions
who are opposed to it. Each side will give a list of political leaders
both within Washington, D.C., and outside who are in favor; and those
opposed will give lists of political leaders who do not support this
program.
There will be poll results that will be given from both sides, the
most recent of which will be given by advocates, a Lester & Associates
poll, which simply says 74 percent of the D.C. residents polled
supported this program and wanted it restored and made available to all
D.C. students for all their abilities to participate. You will hear
polling data to the contrary. You will hear anecdotal stories to the
contrary.
Perhaps the most telling, though, issue of support deals with parents
and the kids in Washington, D.C., who lined up for this program; who
went on waiting lists for the opportunity to become involved in this
program; who cried and pled with Congresses past when this program was
eliminated. They clearly do not want this program to totally be
destroyed because it takes away from them their chance, their option,
their opportunity to individualize and upgrade their educational
opportunities.
This program probably has a philosophical basis, a kinship, if you
would, with the Pell Grant, the GI Bill of
[[Page H2052]]
Rights, in which, once again, government tried to empower with choices
with few strings attached individual adult students or parents so they
could choose their own personal education future. That's what this bill
still tries to do.
The final concept that will probably be presented during debate on
the rule as well as the bill deals with the concept of liberty. We have
a Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. The Revolutionary War was
supposedly fought for the purpose of preserving personal liberty.
I have to admit, though, as I was teaching school that it was
difficult for my kids there to really comprehend what liberty meant. It
was an abstract noun, to say the least. The Founders clearly understood
what that concept meant as they looked upon a government that was far,
far away from them. And in the Declaration of Independence we're
willing to write that the government far away has erected a multitude
of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people
and eke out their stance. Indeed, they had waged war against them.
Those of us who live in the West today have the Department of the
Interior to remind us of those same circumstances.
But the kids, mainly in urban and rural settings and suburban
settings, still have a problem understanding what it means really to
have liberty until you try and talk about liberty in terms of choices.
Options, opportunity, without the heavy hand of a government official
defining what those options and opportunities may or may not be.
The entrepreneurial world gets it. They realize if they want a market
share, they have to give people choices in their lives. So if I want a
mobile phone, there are all sorts of plans from which I may choose.
Even in the smallest corner market in Washington there are still a
whole row of breakfast cereals from which I may choose. I may want
Pringles potato chips, but they still give me 16 varieties. If indeed
Omaha Steaks sends me an invitation every week to try and come up with
one of their products, I will choose this week to order one that fits
for me.
Only in Washington in this government do you still have people that
truly believe in a one-size-fits-all approach and that mandates can
actually be worked, that believe and go back to the concepts of Henry
Ford when the automobile was so unique he could with a straight face
look at a consumer and say, You can have a car in any color you want as
long as it is black.
Unfortunately, many of the ideas and philosophies still in government
today, indeed some of the programs still in government today, were born
in that era in which the idea of an elite sitting in some darkened
office would decide what I wanted and what was indeed best for me.
That's liberty.
The icons who face us in this Chamber, all of them were related in
some way of moving the concept of law forward, which led to the concept
of liberty. This bill is based on that concept of choice, opportunity,
and options for people. It deserves our support because it is an
opportunity. Call it an education app for Americans living in the
District of Columbia. The most needy and deserving can actually have
their choice of how they want their education to take place and it is
done under the sphere of responsibility given to Congress by the
Constitution.
This bill is worthy of our heritage. It is a symbol of our legacy.
One can only assume that the Founders, indeed the icons that are
looking down from the perch above us, are smiling now, saying, Congress
doesn't always do it correctly, but this time with this bill they got
it right.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to
rise in strong opposition to H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity
and Results Act, also known as the SOAR Act. I also am very pleased
that my friend from Utah has, in the tradition of this committee,
granted the time to our side. This legislation revives the District of
Columbia's school voucher program, a program that was allowed to expire
after 5 years of failing to improve student achievement.
My colleague said that there will be statistics on both sides.
Doubtless that is true. I also have great respect that the presenter of
the rule today is a school teacher. At least if somebody is going to
meddle in somebody else's business, they ought to at least know a
little bit about what they're talking about. Too many times in our
States, too many times in this place, many of us who are not educators,
nor have we been involved, are making decisions about the education of
children when we should be being a lot more careful.
{time} 1240
For example, I'm sure that my colleague, who knows his State well, as
I know mine and as we know ours--all of us in this institution--is
mindful that in the last 41 years voters have rejected private school
vouchers every time they have been proposed--interestingly enough, two
times in Utah, I would urge my good friend. As late as 2007, Utah voted
62 percent to 38 percent not to have vouchers. Before that, it was sort
of like the District of Columbia. Incidentally, in 1981, 89 percent of
the people in a referendum in the District of Columbia voted against
vouchers--but in 1988, in Utah, 67 percent. It didn't change very much
from that time to 2007, which isn't very much time from now.
So how dare we come here to tell these people that we are going to
thrust upon them something they don't want without a single bit of
consultation with a single member of the public officials in this
community being consulted. I might ask why we are here debating such a
misguided, narrowly focused measure when violence is raging in the
Middle East, when earthquakes and tsunamis have ravaged Japan, and when
our own Nation's economy is kind of sputtering along. I suppose, when
it is one of the leadership of the Republican Party's pet issues, the
people's work can always be put on hold. This matter is nothing more
than a shallow attempt to, once again, appease the right-wing of the
Republican Party.
Well, Madam Speaker, Congress' oversight of the District is not an
excuse for political pandering to the Republicans' special interest of
the day du jour. My colleague used Leo Durocher. He played with and
against Yogi Berra. Yogi Berra reminds me, if I were to use an analogy,
that this is deja vu all over again.
He and Leo would be proud that we are talking about them, Mr. Bishop.
Whether it is gun rights, a woman's right to choose or education
policy, the District is not and should not be the dumping grounds for
Republicans' ideological whims. My colleagues have already stripped the
District of its limited vote in Congress. The least they could do is
allow them to control their education system just as every other
jurisdiction in this country is able to do.
The people of the District of Columbia did not ask for or want this
program, nor were they or their elected officials consulted, as I have
pointed out. If they had been, I'm sure the committee would have been
told what many of us already know: that this program is simply a waste
of money. According to legislatively mandated evaluations, the D.C.
voucher program failed to show any statistically significant impact on
student achievement. This is in contrast to reading and math scores
across the District, which did improve over the same period. Though my
colleagues claim that this program serves students who would otherwise
be stuck in failing schools without the resources to adequately meet
their needs, only about a quarter of the students using vouchers came
from schools in need of improvement.
Additionally, the Department of Education found that students
participating in the D.C. voucher program were significantly less
likely to attend a school with ESL programs, learning support and
special needs programs, tutors, and counselors.
Further, private schools are not required to hold the same level of
transparency or accountability as public schools. Rather than directing
these funds toward improving all of the District's public and charter
schools, as Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has proposed, this program
only serves 1.3 percent of the 70,000 students enrolled in the D.C.
public schools.
Though my colleagues may claim to have a newfound commitment to
education--my friend from the Rules Committee being an exception--
albeit for
[[Page H2053]]
only a few select students they have found this commitment. Let's not
forget that, just a few weeks ago, some in this body and most in the
Republican Party were content to cut--and my friend just used the
kinship of Pell Grants with this proposal--Federal funding for 9.4
million students, to eliminate over 200,000 Head Start placements, to
do away with supplementary education services for 957,000
underprivileged students, and to reduce or get rid of, they said,
after-school programs for 139,000 students across this Nation.
I was just with the CEO of the Urban League's Broward and Palm Beach
Counties--my constituency--and they were talking about how drastic this
is going to affect the constituency in that area of underprivileged
students and who they are seeing and what the juvenile justice system
is now reaping from this ill harvest that we have thrust upon these
people.
On the one hand, the Republicans go on about the need for fiscal
discipline. They refuse to negotiate on legislation to keep the
government operating, and they propose billions of dollars in cuts to
our Nation's students. Yet they are perfectly willing to throw millions
of dollars at a program that has proven year after year to be
unpopular, inefficient, and downright ineffective.
If my colleagues truly wanted to improve the District's schools,
along with the schools across the Nation, they would be bringing forth
a serious measure to reform the No Child Left Behind provision. But no.
Instead, we are debating a measure that has no hope of becoming law. It
is simply to appease the political whims of a few in the Republican
Party. The American people, in my view, are tired of the majority's
using this institution to do nothing but spew ideological rhetoric.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to
offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the
House adopts this rule it will bring up H.R. 639, the Currency Reform
for Fair Trade Act, and I am mindful that there will be speakers
regarding the same. The amendment will provide our government the tools
to rein in unfair currency policies by the Chinese.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am going to at this time reserve any
further comments that I have after the following statement:
It has been 13 weeks and still no jobs bill and no substantive plan
to improve our Nation's economy. When my friends in the majority are
ready to get down to the serious business of improving the lives of all
American people, we will be waiting.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being here, and I also
appreciate being here with my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
who is one of the true delights with whom I have such an opportunity to
work here in Washington.
I guess, if he is saying that we have the group du jour from whom we
are presenting bills, today's group du jour would be those who are
financially disadvantaged and still want a better opportunity for
education.
As I said, there would be four issues that would be discussed. We can
check off three of the four already. Only the concept of ``liberty''
has yet to be addressed here. Some of them may be non sequiturs, but
they were still there nonetheless. I guess the last statistic that
still can be put out there as to whether this program works or not
deals with the parents who, when the free market of ideas was opened up
to them, they chose this program. They wanted this program. They wanted
to maintain this program, and they will flock back to it.
Since my good friend Mr. Hastings also used a baseball reference to
tie me, I have to one-up him one more time. In the words of the great
Satchel Paige, who was consulting a struggling pitcher who was failing
to get it over on the corners, he just said, Throw the pitch. Just
throw strikes. Home plate don't move.
This program is one of those strikes. All we need to do is throw it.
Home plate don't move.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Before yielding, I'll one-up the one-upper:
Satchel Paige also said, Don't look back.
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend and
colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis).
{time} 1250
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman.
This bill, the SOAR Act, reestablishes a program to send D.C.
students to private elementary and secondary schools. The main issue
that I struggle with, that this body needs to struggle with, with
regard to this measure is the justification for pushing Federal will
onto Washington, D.C., which is counter to local control over
education, a concept that has broad bipartisan support.
One of my top priorities in this body is to improve our education
system--ensure that every child has an effective teacher in a
classroom, improve accountability for all schools, and provide a
pathway to college and careers for lifelong success. To be clear, the
overall state of the schools in Washington, D.C., is a disgrace. A
recent Education Week study showed a 48.8 percent on-time graduation
rate. Frankly, we as Americans should be ashamed. We need to do better,
the Americans who live here in Washington, D.C.
Yet it's absurd, Madam Speaker, that we as elected officials from 50
States are executing a right to determine how schools are funded in a
jurisdiction that doesn't even have a vote in this body. I'm a
Representative of part of one State, Colorado, and yet here I am in a
position to make school funding decisions on behalf of Washington,
D.C., students. We wouldn't do this to Colorado, Ohio, or any other
State.
A district near mine in the State of Colorado, Douglas County School
District, recently enacted a district-wide voucher program. The
residents of D.C. are no less American than the residents of Douglas
County, and yet in Douglas County, Colorado, there will be candidates
that run for school board for the program, candidates that run for
school board against the program, and the future of whether or not
vouchers can continue in Douglas County, Colorado, will be decided
where it should be, by the residents of Douglas County, Colorado.
This vote underscores the need for Washington, D.C., to control its
own public school system as the State does. In fact, Madam Speaker, I
think Washington should be a State. Until that day, Congress should
respect the wishes of D.C. elected officials with regard to the
administration of their education system.
I would point out that there is a Federal interest with regard to
what the States do and what Washington, D.C., does with regard to
education. States and the District of Columbia should have the
discretion to make the changes they need to improve education but not
the discretion to stand back and do nothing. In fact, I worry
considerably about a recent announcement by Mayor Gray that they would
fund capital for charter schools at only $2,800 per pupil as opposed to
the $5,800 that the conventional public schools get.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I would ask for an additional 45 seconds, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 45
seconds.
Mr. POLIS. If the elected officials and people of Washington, D.C.,
wanted a system of school vouchers, they would have created it and not
relied on the Federal Government.
The important moral imperative of education reform can occur with or
without vouchers, and at this point in time, I think it's critical to
give education reformers that are hard at work in the District of
Columbia a chance to succeed on a route that they have laid out, which
apparently does not include vouchers at this time.
I will continue to push for D.C. statehood and for a Federal role
that encourages transparency and accountability, improves and builds
upon our
[[Page H2054]]
successes in public education, and makes sure that we change what
doesn't work, with the tools and discretion at the local level to make
those tough decisions.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Again, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to be here and
also be joined my good friend from Colorado, whom I should probably
publicly apologize to for saying disparaging things last night. I
screwed up and I apologize for that.
However, he presents to us an unusual conundrum that is here on who
gets to decide what will or will not be allowed. Whatever we do in this
unique situation, the decision will be made. If we pass the underlying
bill, we empower parents in Washington, D.C., to make a choice. If we
don't pass the underlying bill, we prohibit parents in Washington,
D.C., from making that kind of choice. Once again, when they were
allowed to make that choice, they had a waiting list for those wishing
to participate. It's a conundrum whatever we do, yes or no. It makes a
decision on behalf of the people of Washington, D.C.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to
inform us as to the remaining time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 16\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 17\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am very pleased at this time to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia,
my good friend, Ms. Holmes Norton, who knows more about this issue than
all of us combined.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, and I certainly thank my good friend
from Florida for his work on not only this bill, H.R. 471, but for his
strong respect for the District of Columbia and its residents and his
support for our right to self-government as American citizens.
I oppose this rule, I oppose this bill, and at the appropriate time,
I will have a substitute to redirect the funds in this bill in
accordance with the home-rule wishes of the District of Columbia. May I
say, I appreciate the words of my good friend from Utah, but I do
resent the use of the word ``liberty'' at a time when this bill will
deprive the residents of the District of Columbia of the liberty every
other district has in deciding local educational decisions for itself.
They have it in Utah, and we will never be satisfied as long as we do
not have each and every right you have in Utah.
Now, the majority ought to approach this rule with caution. Many in
the House ran on the promise to reduce the power of the Federal
Government and to reduce the budget. Now, we are 3 months into the new
Congress, and if they vote for this rule, they will be breaking their
promises.
They will be voting for an unprecedented expansion of the Federal
Government's power into the quintessentially local decision of
elementary and secondary education. They will be voting for this rule
against the will of the jurisdiction, the only jurisdiction to which it
applies, the District of Columbia. They will be voting for this rule
with no consultation with any elected official in the local
jurisdiction involved. They will be voting to authorize the Federal
Government to mandate that a local government offer a program for
students to attend private schools at public expense, Federal expense,
that is. They will be voting to increase the deficit by $300 million
with no offset whatsoever for these funds because this is a new program
and their own protocols demand an offset for new programs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. To complete her thought, I yield the
gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. NORTON. So in the first test of their legislative cut-go
protocol, they will be voting to violate it. They will be voting to do
so with $300 million added to the deficit at a time when they are
cutting $11.6 billion with a ``b'' from education throughout the United
States of America. We are American citizens.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, again, I appreciate the
opportunity of discussing this particular issue.
There is one effect where the Delegate from the District of Columbia
does have something in common with the State of Utah. Over 70 percent
of my land is owned by the Federal Government in Utah, and it is one of
those factors that inhibits our ability to fund our education system in
the State of Utah. The District of Columbia has that same initiative
problem with so much of the land owned by the Federal Government.
The difference, though, is that this program is giving Federal money
to the District of Columbia to fund not just the scholarship
opportunity but also increased funds to fund their charter schools, as
well as funds to fund the regular public education system. In that
respect, I wish we were very similar to what's happening in the
District of Columbia, but unfortunately we are not.
{time} 1300
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question
so that we can address this important issue of currency manipulation
and trade.
Manufacturers in my home State of Rhode Island and those across the
Nation are working hard and playing by the rules, and they are
suffering disproportionately because their Chinese counterparts refuse
to play by the same set of rules in the global economy.
One way Chinese businesses cheat is by keeping their currency
artificially low so that their imports are cheaper than U.S. goods.
That is simply not fair, and this practice must end. Artificially low
Chinese currency contributes greatly to the global trade imbalance,
which puts U.S. businesses and workers at a significant disadvantage.
China's unfair currency manipulation has destroyed millions of good-
paying American jobs and jeopardizes the future of the American middle
class. Employment in manufacturing shrank from 20 million jobs in 1979
to fewer than 12 million jobs today. In Rhode Island, we experienced
the loss of more than 30,000 manufacturing jobs in the last decade
alone.
Despite these sobering statistics, the American manufacturing sector
is in the midst of a resurgence. If this vital economic engine is to be
sustained, Congress must continue its investments in programs that help
manufacturers compete in the global economy, ending currency
manipulation. And by doing that, we can level the playing field for
American manufacturers, give them a fighting chance to compete, and
speed up our economic recovery and create jobs.
With so many factories shuttered, small businesses barely hanging on,
and Rhode Island workers continuing to look for jobs, we can't afford
to wait any longer for the Chinese to correct their unfair trade
practices. That's why I am proud to cosponsor this legislation to end
China's unfair currency manipulation, because in States like Rhode
Island, we have to fight back against countries like China that won't
stick to their obligations under international agreements and play by
the rules.
If our country is going to compete in the global economy, we have to
guarantee that manufacturers are not disadvantaged by an uneven playing
field in foreign trade. We must demand that China play by the rules.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
so I can find another baseball metaphor.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Sort of like ``Joe DiMaggio was against
vouchers.''
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield myself 10 seconds
to explain that we are still on the D.C. voucher matter, but the
previous question is with reference to Chinese currency.
With that, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman, my good friend from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the Republican follies go on. The
Republicans have done nothing in their 13
[[Page H2055]]
weeks in charge of this House to help Americans get jobs, nothing to
open markets for businesses to expand, nothing to open up markets
overseas for American workers and businesses to compete more fairly.
While they hold the economy hostage to their cultural war agenda, maybe
we could do something to help the American people.
I rise today in support of the effort to defeat the previous question
so that we can take a first step toward addressing the egregious
imbalance between China's currency and our own. For too long, the
Chinese have been playing unfairly in the international trade arena,
and this Congress has to send a clear message that China must become a
responsible player in multilateral trade. The Chinese export-driven
strategy is smart, but subsidizing it by suppressing their currency is
an unfair way to do it.
This effort is a good step, and we should follow up by working
together with our trading partners to bring a multilateral WTO case
against China on the currency issue. This commonsense legislation helps
the Commerce Department do a fairer job for making the multilateral
mechanisms more available to U.S. businesses. We must send a clear
signal with this legislation that the American people respect
international agreements and expect fairness.
After years of an unlevel playing field, it is time to act; and this
motion to defeat it and bring it to the floor is the right kind of
measured first step we can take now. I hope the Republicans will join
us in helping this economy. I am tired of reading the Constitution and
all the silly things we have done for the last 13 weeks. When are we
going to see anything having to do with job creation?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to
yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, some of the 15 million unemployed Americans no doubt
got together with some of their friends this morning around a kitchen
table and talked about another fruitless day of job searching, another
sleepless night, another paycheckless Friday that's coming. And I
wonder, Madam Speaker, what they would think about what's going on on
the floor of this House today. At a time when there are 15 million
Americans out of work, the House majority has decided to pretend that
it is the District of Columbia Board of Education.
Now, there are profound issues about the quality of schools for
children in the District of Columbia. I would be guided by their
elected representative, Ms. Holmes Norton, who speaks for them but
tragically does not have the right to vote on their behalf. She should
have that right. But beyond that, what are we doing?
This is a time when Americans are struggling and suffering and losing
their homes. What we should be doing is coming together, Republicans
and Democrats, on this floor to create an environment where
entrepreneurs and small businesses can create jobs for the American
people.
We have a proposal on the floor right now that would say the
following: Let's stop China from unfairly manipulating its currency
that puts American manufacturers at a disadvantage.
It is estimated that 1 million manufacturing jobs could be added in
this country if the Chinese were made to stop their unfair practice of
discriminating and manipulating currency. Now, you may think that's a
good idea or a bad idea. I think it's a good idea. But why don't we
take a vote on that instead of how to run the District of Columbia
Public Schools? That's a question that the voters of the District of
Columbia should decide for themselves. What we ought to decide is to
get our act together and get Americans back to work.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am not objecting at all to the concepts and the
comments about Chinese trade. I think that's a legitimate issue. It has
its time and place, perhaps not necessarily on this particular bill.
But as an approach that the opposition, the minority, wishes to take, I
can understand that.
I do, though, have my baseball analogy still here, and I'm not going
to count the DiMaggio joke because that was made up. That was not a
true one. But it is true that Casey Stengel at one time, talking about
I think one of the best second basemen ever, Bobby Richardson, said: I
just can't understand it. He doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, he
doesn't stay out at night, and he still can't hit .250.
Now, even though a healthy lifestyle may extend a career, it still
has no ability or connection to the ability of hitting a curve ball.
But those kind of non sequiturs are part and parcel of the entire
debate that we will be having not just on this rule but also extended
on to the other debate as well.
I find it personally very difficult to understand why anyone would
oppose this bill, which only expands choices for D.C.'s brightest and
least financially blessed schoolkids and does not subtract from school
funding for D.C. public schools. In fact, it increases funding while
keeping within Federal budget disciplines. It increases the percentage
of money going to the charter school program as well as to the public
schools. This is a win-win-win situation because it sends money to
three distinct efforts: the regular public school; the charter schools,
which have a waiting list more than ever before; and also this
Opportunity Scholarship Program, which had a waiting list and will
again as well.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1310
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, my friend is absolutely
correct about the Joe DiMaggio comment. But I've been around long
enough to remember the Washington Senators. One of my personal friends
played baseball with them, Earl Battey, and I won't tell you some of
the things that Earl said to me when it wasn't about school vouchers.
But I leave to the seriousness of the moment 5 minutes of my
remaining time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton), who has, with great persistence, tried to get clarity about
taxation without representation.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, you know, in the later days of European
colonialism, countries like France allowed some representation from the
colonies because the whole notion of voting on the fate of the colonies
with nobody there who could also vote seemed even then to be a dilemma
they could not live with. And I don't understand how any Member of the
House believes she has a right to vote on local education matters or
any other local matter affecting any part of the United States,
including the District of Columbia.
I note, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Polis of the Rules Committee
indicated yesterday that there was a county in Colorado that had
created its own voucher program. I respect that because they didn't
come to the Federal Government to ask that their local voucher program
be funded, nor, Madam Speaker, did we.
I think every Member of this House ought to ask, since we've had 5
years of a voucher bill, why is there no national bill on the floor? I
think the gentleman from Florida has said one of the good reasons, and
that is that the Bush Department of Education found that, when compared
with the students in comparable schools in DC, there was no increase in
test scores in math or reading. So there's a merit reason why there's
no national bill.
But there's another reason why. The majority doesn't have the nerve
to put a national voucher bill on the floor because it knows that in
each and every state referendum, including in referendums in Utah, from
which my good friend comes, not once has such a referendum succeeded.
I don't know why the majority thinks it can go home now and say I
voted for vouchers, when you, yourselves, were against the use of
public money for private schools in your district. I would not like to
be at that town meeting where you have to explain why you voted for a
rule for $300
[[Page H2056]]
million for one district that did not want that money for that purpose.
Madam Speaker, I very much resent the use of Article I, Section VIII
of the Constitution whenever the majority wants to move in on the
District of Columbia with one of its pet ideas, or because it disagrees
with some issue in the District of Columbia. That's quintessentially
the absence of democracy.
It's one thing to have no democracy. It's another thing to press your
version of policy on another jurisdiction. That's why I have an
alternative, a substitute that I will be bringing at an appropriate
time.
Madam Speaker, in 1973, after 150 years, this Congress finally said
we have been wrong for most of the existence of our country in allowing
no democracy whatsoever in the District of Columbia, no mayor, no city
council. We give up. We delegate self-government to you. We are out of
your affairs.
Self-government means nothing if the District of Columbia can still
be a dumping ground for every pet project and pet idea of the majority.
We have our own pet ideas, and we will insist on respect for our own
ideas, and not yours.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend from
Utah that I am going to be the last speaker.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will yield 10 minutes if the gentleman from
California wants it. Otherwise, I will be happy to use what he does not
use.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
is recognized for 10 minutes.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, first, let me thank my friend for his
superb management of this rule and to say that I have the utmost
respect for my colleague from the District of Columbia. Since I reside
here in the District of Columbia, she represents me here in this
institution. And when I'm here--of course I'm a Californian, first and
foremost--but when I'm here, I get her newsletters in the mail. She and
I have served on a commission together, focused on reform of this
Congress in the 1990s, and I do have the utmost respect for her.
That is one of the main reasons that we chose, when she offered the
one amendment to this measure, to make it in order, because there's
been a commitment that Speaker Boehner and I and others have made that
we want to have a free-flowing debate. And I think that the notion of
concluding that somehow this is a cut-and-dried issue was really wrong.
I have to say that I felt, as I sat in the Rules Committee last night
and listened to my good friend and I listened to Mr. McGovern, I was
really saying, my gosh, maybe there is no support for this measure at
all. Especially when Mr. McGovern, the second ranking Democrat on the
Rules Committee, said every city council member in the District of
Columbia is opposed to this measure. In fact, he said it not once but
two, maybe even three, times.
And then I was handed a list. And I have just been told that Mr.
Bishop raised at the beginning that there are going to be lists on
either side.
But the notion, to conclude, Madam Speaker, that we somehow are
imposing the will of the majority on the people of the District of
Columbia, that there's no support for this whatsoever, which is what I
inferred from what was offered in the Rules Committee last night, is
just plain wrong.
I don't often cite the editorial work of The Washington Post, but The
Washington Post has editorialized strongly in support of this notion.
Why? Because they're committed, as I believe we all are, Democrats and
Republicans alike, I believe that all of my colleagues are committed to
improving educational opportunities for our fellow Americans.
I think that what we need to recognize is that educational choice is
an important thing, and that's why The Washington Post has
editorialized in support of this.
And then when one looks at the list of D.C. leaders, some currently
holding office, some formerly having held elective office here in the
District of Columbia, the notion that there's only one voice that's
elected by the people of the District of Columbia is an inaccurate one.
The fact is, the chairman of the city council, chairman-at-large,
Kwame Brown, is a supporter of this measure. The former mayor, Adrian
Fenty. I recognize that he did not win reelection. I don't know that
this was the sole determinant in the outcome of that election. But
Adrian Fenty, in fact, is a supporter of this measure.
The mayor before that, Anthony Williams, is a supporter of this
measure. Marion Barry, the former mayor; Kevin Chavous, former chairman
of the D.C. City Council Education Committee; Patrick Mara, the D.C.
school board member; and, of course, the often-cited Michelle Rhee, the
former D.C. school chancellor, they all happen to be supporters of this
measure.
And so that's why, some elected, some not elected, some hold office
today, some formerly held office, but I believe, Madam Speaker, that
every single one of these people, along with the editorial pages, as I
said, of The Post, The Journal, a number of other publications, lots of
organizations are very, very committed to ensuring the quality of
education is improved in the District of Columbia, and, Madam Speaker,
they are very, very committed to ensuring that we see the quality of
education improved across this country.
{time} 1320
It is very important for us to do that. And that is why I find it
very interesting that the previous question battle that we are dealing
with here is one that is designed to focus on the issue of
international trade and creating jobs here in the United States.
I can understand there is a great deal of concern about the fact that
jobs have fled overseas. That has happened because of the policies of
the United States of America. The fact that we have the highest tax
rate on job creators of any country in the world, the fact that we have
chosen over the last few years to stick our heads in the sand when it
has come to market opening opportunities through trade agreements which
have been signed by our past administration and the leaders of other
countries, is an indication that we have chosen to ignore great job-
creating opportunities. And I am speaking about these trade agreements,
the ones that President Obama said that he would like to see us pass
here in the House. First, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which he
talked about. And I am grateful that he talked about the importance of
Colombia and Panama, two agreements that were actually signed before
the completion of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
Now, Madam Speaker, if we were to focus attention on those items,
plus reducing that top rate on job creators from 35 percent to 25
percent, that would do more to create job opportunities than almost
anything we could do.
And then we get back to the core issue here, and that is education.
We need to make sure that the United States of America, as we seek to
remain competitive in this global economy, that we have the best
educated young people. That is why educational choice, I believe, is
critically important.
We are going to have an opportunity for debate. The Rules Committee
has chosen to make in order and give 40 minutes of debate to my friend
from the District of Columbia so we will be able to continue this
exchange.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor of the previous
question, and in so doing, we will be able to pursue tremendous items
like the pending three free trade agreements and reducing the top rate
on corporate income, those on job creators, so that we can generate
more job opportunities in this country.
Vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Vote ``yes'' on the rule. I
believe that the underlying legislation will dramatically enhance the
opportunity for young people in the District of Columbia to have
educational opportunities that they otherwise would not have.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have
remaining?
[[Page H2057]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield 1 minute of that time to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton.
Ms. NORTON. No one ever said that everybody in the District of
Columbia or even every public official was against vouchers.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I just said that Mr. McGovern in the debate last night in
the Rules Committee said that every city council member, and then I was
given this list.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Ms. NORTON. On the contrary, a letter is on its way up here from city
council members. The present mayor opposes the bill. Yes, the former
mayor was for the bill. The largest demonstration of citizens since I
have been in the Congress was held when this bill was imposed on the
District of Columbia.
If you ask people in the District of Columbia, ``Would you support
some Federal money for vouchers?'' a lot of them will say yes. If you
ask them the right question, ``Would you want money for private school
vouchers or would you want money for public charter schools?'' hands
down, they will say, relieve those long waiting lists of all of us
trying to get in our public charter schools and give the money to our
public charter schools.
Nobody on that side of the aisle knows anything about the residents
of the District of Columbia or they never would have put this bill in
in the first place.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my
time, and I will tell the gentleman from Florida that I am prepared to
close when he is.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, and I shall conclude.
I say to the chairman, before he leaves the room, that if any
American corporation is paying 35 percent corporate tax, they need to
fire their accountants.
Madam Speaker, if the people of the District of Columbia wanted a
school voucher program, they would have created one--without the
interference of Congress.
This pilot program was allowed to expire for a reason: It didn't
work.
Why the self-proclaimed party of fiscal conservatism would support
authorizing millions, 300 of those, in new spending for a downright
useless program with no offset is beyond me. It is time for Republicans
to take their hands out of the internal affairs of the District, and
instead focus on what our constituents sent us here to do--rebuild our
economy and put Americans back to work.
At a time when our Nation's schools and communities find themselves
in dire fiscal straits, we should not be throwing money away to revive
a program that has, by all objective measures, failed.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question, so we can debate and pass real jobs legislation
today, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Once again, I appreciate the discussion, I
appreciate my good friend from Florida if for no other reason that all
of a sudden people are now sending me baseball stories and analogies
here. I have one from Casey Stengel which I will save for the next time
we join together here on the floor.
Madam Speaker, it is fairly clear what we are dealing with in this
particular bill. This is money that is within our Federal budgetary
discipline. We are talking with this bill about money that would go to
the traditional public education system in the District of Columbia, an
equal amount of money that would go to the charter schools which does
have a waiting list here in the District of Columbia, as well as money
that would go to this new opportunity scholarship.
Once again, with our dueling statistics, whether one wants to say
that it was successful or not, the bottom line is still there were
parents who wanted that program, there were parents who complained when
the program was taken away from them by Congress, and there are parents
who still want this program reestablished. They want those options for
their children.
We have a choice here. If we act favorably on this bill, we empower
those parents. If we refuse to act favorably on this bill, then we
limit those parents and the choices that they seem to want. That is one
of those issues that is there.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate the fairness of this
structured rule. I urge its adoption, along with the underlying
legislation. I urge members to support this rule which will allow the
House to consider good legislation that affords bright and competitive
D.C. students with an enhanced opportunity to pursue a higher quality
of education while not harming the underlying public education system
in the District of Columbia.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 186 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, 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.
639) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify
that countervailing duties may be imposed to address
subsidies relating to a fundamentally undervalued currency of
any foreign country. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. 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. 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this
resolution.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
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 Republican 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 Republican
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 Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated,
[[Page H2058]]
control of the time passes to the Member who led the
opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member,
because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to
the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In 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 Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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 ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam 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 adoption of House Resolution 186, if
ordered; and approval of the Journal, by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 182, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 199]
YEAS--237
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--182
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Barton (TX)
Butterfield
Campbell
Carson (IN)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Conyers
Costello
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Ruppersberger
Shuler
Whitfield
{time} 1353
Ms. BROWN of Florida, Messrs. TIERNEY, CLARKE of Michigan, HONDA,
ISRAEL, and Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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. McGOVERN. Madam 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 235,
nays 178, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 200]
YEAS--235
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
[[Page H2059]]
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--178
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Brooks
Butterfield
Campbell
Carson (IN)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Davis (IL)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Giffords
Hayworth
Heller
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Shuler
Slaughter
{time} 1400
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.
____________________