[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 132 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5979-H5988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2218, EMPOWERING PARENTS THROUGH
QUALITY CHARTER SCHOOLS ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
1892, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 392
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. 2218) to amend the charter school program
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 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 Education and
the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
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. All points of order against such
amendments 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. 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. 2. (a) 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. 1892) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2012 for
[[Page H5980]]
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account,
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System, 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. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and amendments specified in this
resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule.
(b) In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as
an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated
August 31, 2011. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
(c) No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute made in order as original text shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc
described in subsection (f).
(d) Each amendment printed in part B of 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.
(e) All points of order against amendments printed in part
B of the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en
bloc described in subsection (f) are waived.
(f) It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or his designee to
offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier
disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this
subsection shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence 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.
(g) 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made in
order as original text. 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. 3. A motion to proceed with regard to a joint
resolution of disapproval specified in subsection (a)(1) of
section 3101A of title 31, United States Code--(a) shall be
in order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his
designee; and (b) may be offered even following the sixth day
specified in subsection (c)(3) of such section but not later
than the legislative day of September 14, 2011.
{time} 1240
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 392 provides for a structured rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents
Through Quality Charter Schools Act, and H.R. 1892, the Fiscal Year
2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.
My colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and
I have been working to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. H.R. 2218, Empowering Parents Through Quality Charter
Schools, is just one of a series of bills the committee has considered
this year.
During committee consideration, this legislation received strong
bipartisan support, including that of the committee's ranking Democrat
member, George Miller. H.R. 2218 reauthorizes the charter school
program and modernizes it by allowing the replication or expansion of
high quality charter schools in addition to the creation of new charter
schools.
The charter school program is important to ensure that parents and
students have choice in education. With this bill, the House Education
and the Workforce Committee has begun the bipartisan process of
reauthorizing ESEA, and I urge my colleagues in the full House to
support this rule in favor of the bill.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1892, the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community plays a vital role in our
national security and defense. The bill was reported out of committee
by a voice vote, and the committee has worked with the Senate to
develop a bipartisan, bicameral bill. Therefore, I urge my colleagues
to support the bill.
Under this rule, the Rules Committee has made it in order to consider
six Democrat amendments and three Republican amendments to the
Intelligence Authorization bill. We have also made in order five
Democrat amendments, two bipartisan amendments, and one Republican
amendment to the charter school bill.
I am pleased to work with my colleagues on the Rules Committee to
report rules for floor debate and the consideration of legislation that
promotes transparency and participation.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we will be discussing two good bills. Both bills
under this rule are bipartisan bills. One will support students across
this Nation, give parents better choices, improve the quality of our
charter schools in our country; and so, too, we will improve and
enhance the intelligence gathering of our Nation that keeps us safe
under the authorization bill.
The Quality Charter Schools Act will improve our global economic
standing by improving student access to quality and effective public
charter schools.
I find, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is necessary to help educate some
of our colleagues on the definition of what charter schools are.
Charter schools are established by school districts or other
authorizers. They are public schools and have to accept all students
equally. The concept of these schools is that they have site-based
management. So, again, they are public schools with site-based
management. That, in brief, is the definition of a charter school.
Now, that is not better or worse than a district running a school. It
can be better; it can be worse. And as we look across the country, we
see examples of good charter schools and bad charter schools. Just
because something is a charter school certainly doesn't mean it is
good.
What we've tried to do with this bill is improve the quality of the
authorizing practices of the States and the districts as they go into:
A, initially evaluating charter schools and making sure they serve at-
risk students and show demonstrated success in closing the achievement
gap; and, B, making sure that they follow through on what their charter
contains.
A charter is a synonym for a contract. Effectively, these schools
operate through contracts with public authorities, namely authorizers,
States, State charter institutes, regions, and school districts, and
they are able to operate under those contracts and fulfill their role
as public schools.
What are charter schools not? And I sometimes hear from my
colleagues, is this corporate control of our schools? Is this some for-
profit thing? No, it is actually irrelevant to that discussion, the
discussion of charter schools.
Sometimes for-profit companies are brought in as vendors to run
schools. Now, this can happen with school districts just as surely as
it can happen with charter schools. Some of the larger instances of
this have been school
[[Page H5981]]
districts because, of course, charter schools are much more mom and
pop. But that is a separate discussion about what vendors can and
cannot be brought in to actually run public schools.
In the State of Colorado, as an example, we don't allow any for-
profit institutions to hold a charter. Now, certainly we don't restrict
charters to school districts, and they bring in a variety of vendors. I
think every school district in the country uses private, for-profit
textbook vendors as an example. But we would be against managing out of
D.C. what vendors they bring in. In fact, charter schools and school
districts have great discretion about what vendors they use.
But what this bill does is it effectively ups the ante on the
accountability, the oversight, and also assisting with the growth of
quality charter schools. Many charter schools across the country focus
on particular areas of learning or emphasize particular aspects of
curriculum. We have excellent art charter schools, college prep charter
schools, Montessori charter schools, core knowledge, English language
acquisition, outdoor learning, and education charter schools.
They can function more independently than a large district because
they do have site-based management that allows for operational
flexibility. They can have different school calendars, different school
days, and different curriculums. This freedom allows the charters to
function autonomously in areas that can benefit children's success in
school.
And again, with experimentation, not everything you try is going to
work. And, of course, for every example of a charter school that
successfully serves at-risk kids, there are also counterexamples of
charter schools that are doing as poorly, or more so, than some of the
failing neighborhood schools that the children were in before.
I have direct experience founding and running several charter schools
in Colorado that filled particular education niches. I founded and
served as superintendent of New America School. When I saw that many
school districts in my State were dropping funding for older students
that were still learning English and there weren't the types of
programs to keep new immigrants in high school through a diploma, I
approached several school districts about approving a charter school
for this population, for 16- to 21-year-old English language learners.
We were granted several charters. New America School now operates in
Colorado and New Mexico and has served thousands of English language
learners, helping them achieve a high school diploma through meeting
their real-life needs.
Again, we really worked backwards from where the customers were. Why
weren't these students in school in the first place? Many of them had
real-life obstacles. They had day jobs; so they needed a night school.
Forty percent of the young women had children; so they needed either
on-site daycare or some sort of daycare voucher that we were able to
help them supply.
And just as importantly, we made sure that every member of the staff,
the teachers at the school, every single one of them, is passionate
about helping new immigrants learn English; and that is what brought
them to our school and actually improved the faculty morale because
they were able to practice their passion rather than it being an
afterthought as it was in some of the other conventional schools.
I also founded the Academy of Urban Learning, which is focused on
educating homeless students in Denver.
Right here in Washington, D.C., we have seen the success of several
excellent charter schools that have outperformed other public schools,
including the KIPP schools.
So we have seen across this country, as a result of the charter
school movement, great experimentation, some successes and some
failures. It's time, 10 years on, to learn from our experiences with
charter schools and replace the Federal authorizing act with one that
can really up the ante, take the learning that has occurred over the
last decade into account and improve both the quality of charter
schools generally and the quantity of good charter schools across our
country.
{time} 1250
This bill would update the existing Federal initiatives. We provide
critical investment in quality alternatives. The bill carves out 15
percent of the funding for facilities, capital, and credit
enhancements, and the remaining 80 percent would go to start new
charter schools. The bill would require States to provide 90 percent of
their grants to charter school authorizers and operators. It also
incorporates much of the language from a bill that Mr. Paulsen of
Minnesota and I introduced last session and this session, the All-STAR
Act, which would add for the first time Federal law State-level funding
for expansion of successful charter schools.
So, again, when we have examples of what works in public education,
why not do more of it? Yes, we want to turn around failing schools.
Yes, we need to improve upon what doesn't work. And yes, we need to
hold charter schools that are not working fully accountable under the
law. But when we have an example of something that works, we should
support serving more kids. As a simple example, in my State and
district, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy in Westminster is a K-8
charter school that opened just 4 years ago. I'm glad, by the way, that
one of the amendments made in order under this rule is an amendment
from Mr. Paulsen and I that would specify that schools that have 3
years of demonstrated success are eligible for expansion grants,
because this school has only been around for 4 years. It has an
extended year, extended day program. It provides after-school tutoring,
full-day kindergarten. Every student studies chess and tennis. The
student population maps the kind of a traditional at-risk population,
with 95 percent Latino, 86 percent English language learners, 93
percent free and reduced lunch. This means these are poor and working
families. Yet, the Ricardo Flores Magon Academy has scored far above
the State average, including our wealthy suburban districts like some
of the other areas that I represent, in the past 3 years. They scored
95 to 100 percent proficient in math, between 77 and 97 percent
proficient in reading and writing, and for third- and fifth-graders
they've averaged 20 percent higher than the State averages. Other
successful charter schools in Colorado, like the Denver School of
Science and Technology, have also achieved positive outcomes with low-
income students.
I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to talk about many of the
amendments made in order under this bill. We did in the Rules Committee
propose an open rule for these bills, and it would have been nice to
have a more thorough discussion, which is why I'll be opposing this
rule. But I am glad I did make in order several amendments, including
one of mine.
Mr. Speaker, this rule also brings another very important bill to the
floor, the Fiscal Year 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act. This bill
continues the recent bipartisan tradition of passing authorization
bills in order to reform and conduct oversight of our intelligence
community. Every Member of this body believes strongly in keeping our
country safe. When we're discussing the threats to our Nation and the
war on terror, the front line of that war is our intelligence-gathering
apparatus and our intelligence community. In this time of budget
constraint we know we need to spend our money wisely. I've often argued
that instead of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars invading
countries preemptively, we should use our force selectively, including
targeted collection of intelligence about where threats arise.
This bill makes a balanced compromise between budget realities and
our national security need. This authorization did find savings in
various aspects of the intelligence community. It proposes to curb
post-personnel growth while protecting our capabilities. While it
invests in select high-priority needs, it also achieves savings by
handling contractors similar to the way the President handles pay for
civilian employees.
Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that this body was able to come together with
both of the committees of jurisdiction, Intelligence and Education and
Workforce, around strong bipartisan compromise under these two bills.
And while I wish we had the opportunity to further discuss additional
recommendations for amendments on the floor, I am appreciative that in
fact there will be a robust discussion with regard to the charter
school bill under this rule.
[[Page H5982]]
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado
for his support of the bill and support of the concept of charter
schools. I want to congratulate him on his involvement and say that I
think this is a great example of bipartisan cooperation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, a colleague of mine on the Rules
Committee, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk just for a couple of minutes about
a serious matter that relates to the Intelligence bill that we will
later consider.
For the past decade, Colombia's intelligence agency, the Department
of Administrative Security, or the DAS, has engaged in illegal
activities. Created to investigate organized crime, insurgents, and
drug traffickers, the DAS instead provided paramilitary death squads
with the names of trade unionists to be murdered and carried out
illegal surveillance on journalists, human rights defenders, political
opposition leaders, and Supreme Court judges. American cash, equipment,
and training to help shut down drug trafficking may have been used for
spy operations, smear campaigns, and threats against civil society
leaders in Colombia. Several U.S. agencies aided the DAS--the State
Department, Pentagon, DEA, CIA, and DIA--even as scandal after scandal
after scandal became publicly known. It was only in April, 2010, when
U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield suspended U.S. aid to the DAS,
diverting those resources to the Colombian National Police.
Yesterday, Congresswoman Schakowsky and I sent a letter to the
Secretaries of State and Defense, the U.S. Attorney General, and the
CIA Director, asking them to provide Congress with a comprehensive
report on all forms of U.S. aid to the DAS and to tell us what the DAS
used the aid for. It's not too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. There has been
a shocking lack of oversight over all the U.S. aid that poured into the
DAS over the past decade. Getting to the bottom of this is what
oversight is all about. Colombia appears to be doing its part. The
Attorney General is carrying out an aggressive investigation and series
of prosecutions. Six former high-ranking intelligence officials have
confessed to crimes. More than a dozen other operatives are on trial,
with more still under investigation. President Santos has promised to
dismantle the DAS and replace it with a new intelligence agency. But in
the meantime, the old structures still remain. Witnesses cooperating
with the Attorney General find themselves and their families
threatened, and human rights defenders even now are still under
surveillance.
Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that U.S. intentions were good, but I also
believe the DAS was generally up to no good. I find it impossible to
understand how the State Department and Embassy officials can say with
certainty that absolutely no U.S. aid funding was ever used by the DAS
for criminal purposes. Congress must insist on safeguards to ensure
that no funding, equipment, training, or intelligence-sharing with any
Colombian intelligence agency is used for illegal surveillance or
criminal activities now and in the future.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. McGOVERN. The administration or Congress must prohibit any
further funding for the DAS, including aid in the pipeline, until the
Attorney General has completed all investigations and prosecutions,
finds out who ordered these illegal activities, and President Santos
has completely dismantled the current agency. I ask the committee
chairman and ranking member to guarantee the Members of this House that
no further aid will be provided to the DAS, and if that prohibition is
not explicitly in this bill, that they will work with the Senate to
include it in the final conference report.
[From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 2, 2011.]
Colombia's Spreading Scandal
The U.S. provided nearly $6 billion as part of Plan
Colombia, an anti-narcotics and counterinsurgency program.
But did the money also pay for human rights abuses?
The United States has long considered Colombia its
strongest ally in Latin America. Over the last eight years it
has provided the Colombian government with nearly $6 billion
as part of Plan Colombia, an ambitious anti-narcotics and
counterinsurgency program that has often been held up as a
model of cooperation.
But recent reports in the Washington Post suggest that U.S.
assistance intended to combat drugs and terrorism was
diverted to Colombian intelligence officials, who used it
instead to spy on judges, journalists, politicians and union
leaders.
The Post also reported that the United States was aware of
the spying, including illicit wiretapping. Whether that is
true is unclear. State Department officials say no one at the
U.S. Embassy in Bogota knew about the wiretaps. And President
Juan Manuel Santos, who took office last year after the
spying controversy erupted, has also denied that the United
States had any role in the growing scandal.
That will do little to quell questions about U.S.
involvement, given Plan Colombia's troubled past. A United
Nations human rights investigator concluded last year that a
large number of Colombian military units were involved in
shooting innocent young men and falsely identifying them as
rebels in an effort to boost body counts. The extrajudicial
killings were alleged to have been carried out by army units
that had been vetted by the U.S. State Department and cleared
to receive U.S. funding.
And last year, then-U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield
announced that all assistance to Colombia's Department of
Administrative Security was being suspended indefinitely
following disclosures in the Colombian media that indicated
widespread spying abuses. Since then, Colombian authorities
have arrested 28 officials, including former President Alvaro
Uribe's chief of staff, in connection with the scandal.
Colombia's government has vowed to dismantle the
intelligence agency, and the Santos administration and
attorney general have been courageous in investigating the
scandal. Now it's up to the United States to move quickly to
determine how much aid was provided to the agency and what it
was used for. The U.S. must show the same resolve as Colombia
has in ferreting out the truth.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 7, 2011.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC.
Hon. Leon E. Panetta,
Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
General David H. Petraeus,
Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, Attorney General
Holder and Director Petraeus, We write to request a
comprehensive accounting of U.S. assistance to the Colombian
government's Department of Administrative Security (DAS)
during the period of August 7, 2002 to August 7, 2010.
Specifically, we request a full accounting of all funds,
training, lethal and non-lethal equipment, intelligence- and
information-sharing, technical assistance, facilities
construction and any other aid provided to the DAS, its
officials, its employees or any of its contractors during
this period, whether in Colombia, the U.S., or at other
facilities. We further request the information indicate any
such aid or information provided to the National and
International Observations Group of the DAS.
As you know, the Colombian Attorney General's Office is
undertaking an aggressive investigation and series of
prosecutions of illegal activities carried out by the DAS
during these years. Six former high-ranking intelligence
officials have confessed to crimes and more than a dozen
other agency operatives are on trial, and several more are
under investigation by the Attorney General or by a special
legislative commission of the Colombian Congress.
These investigations have revealed a vast illegal network
of surveillance of nearly all sectors of civil society,
including human rights defenders, political party leaders,
journalists and members of the Colombian Supreme Court
engaged in investigations of elected officials with alleged
ties to paramilitary groups or who engaged in corrupt
practices. These illegal operations were also connected to
threats received by many of the individuals under
surveillance, and in some cases the DAS shared information
with paramilitary and other violent actors that resulted in
the assassinations of trade unionists and other rights
defenders.
Recent articles in the Washington Post (8/21/11) assert
that U.S. aid may be implicated in these abuses of power. We
are concerned that former President Alvaro Uribe has made
public statements claiming the reporters who wrote these
articles are terrorist sympathizers (simpatizantes del
terrorismo), going so far as to characterize one reporter as
a terrorist ally (ocultador del terrorismo), language that
increases the level of threat under which journalists work in
Colombia. We strongly urge you to make clear to the former
president that such statements are unacceptable and ask that
he retract them.
We believe it is important to set the record straight in a
clear and transparent manner by providing Congress with a
comprehensive report on all forms of U.S. assistance to the
DAS. We also believe it is important to provide Congress with
this information in as
[[Page H5983]]
rapid a manner as possible, but assuredly prior to when
Congress begins debate on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade
Agreement.
To the maximum extent possible, the information included in
this comprehensive report should be provided in an
unclassified format; if necessary, a classified annex should
be made available for review by all Members of Congress. We
further ask that you inquire and coordinate with your
counterparts in other departments and agencies that might
have been working with the DAS (e.g. Treasury/Internal
Revenue Service) to ensure that the report is indeed
comprehensive.
Thank you for your serious attention to this request. We
look forward to your timely response and the receipt of this
comprehensive report regarding all forms of U.S. support for
the DAS over the past decade.
Sincerely,
James P. McGovern,
Member of Congress.
Janice D. Schakowsky,
Member of Congress.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished chairman 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.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my friend on his
very strong and passionate commitment and let him know that I share our
desire to ensure that human rights are recognized in Colombia and
anyplace in the world. I worked with him in the past when he was a
staff member working for Mr. Moakley on this issue in El Salvador. It
is imperative that we resolve it and ensure that our tax dollars are
not being used for any kind of nefarious purposes.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to rise in strong support of
this rule. I do it because it's been a long time since we've had the
occurrence that we did yesterday in the House Rules Committee. We just
came back, as we all know, from this 5-week district work period of
August, and we had the first meeting in the Rules Committee.
{time} 1300
In that meeting, we began with the chairman of the Education and
Workforce Committee, Mr. Kline, and the ranking member of that
committee, Mr. Miller; the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, Mr. Rogers, and the ranking member, Mr. Ruppersberger,
coming before the Rules Committee and offering bipartisan proposals on
both charter schools for the Education Committee, obviously, and the
authorization bill from the Intelligence Committee. In fact, I quipped
at one point during the Rules Committee that maybe we should have a 5-
week break between each Rules Committee meeting so that we can, in
fact, come together in a bipartisan way and deal with these critically
important issues.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is a great day, especially as we
prepare, in just a little less than 7 hours, to hear from the President
of the United States on an issue that Democrats and Republicans alike
say needs to be addressed. We all know, from having been in our States
over the past 5 weeks, that job creation and economic growth are the
top priorities for the American people. We all represent constituents
who are hurting. I have friends who have lost their homes, their
businesses, their jobs, and we want to make sure that we get our
economy back on track.
It's my hope that the example that we're going to have today as we
begin consideration of the charter schools bill and then tomorrow as we
deal with the intelligence bill--and obviously the bill that we're
going to be considering today, because of the President's speech
tonight, will have to carry on into next week, so we will obviously
have this continued bipartisan spirit on the issue of charter schools
next week. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we're in a position where we
can use these two as a model to address this issue of job creation and
economic growth.
Now, there is recognition that there are a wide range of views on the
issue of job creation and economic growth, and we were reminded by the
Senate minority leader just today of the proverbial Einstein directive
that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
and over again and expecting a different outcome.
I think that many of us--most all Republicans and some Democrats--
have come to the conclusion that this notion of dramatically increasing
spending, which is what we went through with the stimulus bill and
several other issues, is not, in fact, the panacea that we have. And,
frankly, I don't believe that there is an absolute silver bullet, there
is not an absolute panacea, but I do believe that we need to try to put
into place an effort that will reduce the regulatory burden imposed on
those who are seeking to create jobs in this country. That's one of the
proposals that we have. And again, I hope that we can work with the
President on that issue.
There has also been recognition that, since the Japanese have reduced
their top rate on job creators, we in the United States of America have
the highest tax rate on job creators--it's the corporate tax rate--of
any country in the world. Now, I realize that obviously we know there
are corporations that, through the tax structure that we have today,
don't pay that 35 percent rate, but I think that we need to make sure
that we close loopholes and reduce that top rate. And I'm not the only
one who has spoken in support of that. Former President Bill Clinton
has spoken in support of that idea. President Barack Obama has spoken
in support of that idea.
And I know that, as I look at my friends on the other side of the
aisle--at this moment I'm looking at one who shares my view. I'm not
going to name names, Mr. Speaker, but I'm looking at one who does share
my view and another who might share my view as well on this issue. So
there is a bipartisan consensus that if we can reduce that top rate on
job creators, we have the potential to create jobs and also--and I know
my friends on both sides of the aisle share this notion--generate an
increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, thereby
dealing with this tremendous fiscal problem that we have.
We have our joint select committee that is going to be dealing with
the issue of deficit reduction. And we know that economic growth would
be the single best way to generate the revenues that we need to pay
down the debt and deal with the overall fiscal challenges we have and
have the resources necessary for the priorities that are out there.
Another issue, building on what was said by my friend from Worcester
earlier, he mentioned the issue of Colombia. I happen to believe that
if we look at the pending trade agreements that have been,
unfortunately, languishing for 4 years, we need to make sure that we
bring those forward. I am very encouraged by the fact that the
President of the United States has indicated his willingness to do
that. I also want to congratulate Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor for
the letter that they sent to the President saying we want to find these
areas of agreement, and the trade issue is one of them.
I don't speak for every single Republican, but I speak for most all
Republicans who believe very, very strongly that the notion of opening
up new markets around the world for job creation and economic growth
here in the United States, creating union and nonunion jobs is
something that would take place if we were to pass the Korea, Colombia,
and Panama agreements.
Mr. Speaker, there are many people who believe that somehow passing
these agreements will open up a flood of foreign products coming into
the United States, undermining the ability to create jobs here in the
United States, when, in fact, the opposite will be the case because
Korea, Colombia, and Panama today have, by and large, free access to
the U.S. consumer market. That's a good thing. It's a good thing
because it allows that single mother who is trying to make ends meet,
going to Wal-Mart or Kmart or Target or wherever, to buy products that
are affordable. That's a positive thing. That's a good thing for our
economy.
What we need to do is we need to recognize that now we need to open
up those markets so that while things come in from Korea, and Colombia
especially, we need to do what we can to get into their markets. There
are 40 million consumers in Colombia.
[[Page H5984]]
Manufacturing jobs will be created here. Caterpillar, John Deere,
Whirlpool, other great manufacturing companies here in the United
States would have access to those markets.
And on the Korea deal, Mr. Speaker, it will be the single largest
bilateral free trade agreement in the history of the world, allowing us
to have the ability to sell our automobiles and other products into the
Korean market.
So this is an area where I believe that, again, recognizing that
union and nonunion jobs will be created here in the United States, that
this can be an area of bipartisan agreement, and I know that the
President will clearly talk about the imperative of these in the
address he's going to be giving right behind me early this evening.
What we're dealing with today, Mr. Speaker, is a very positive thing
on the issue of charter schools, and I laud my friend from Colorado,
who has done such a great job in starting charter schools and improving
charter schools.
I also want to comment on the statement that was made in the Rules
Committee yesterday by the former chairman and now the ranking member
of the Education Committee, Mr. Miller, who said that for many years he
was a strong opponent of charter schools and now, for many years, he
has been a strong proponent of charter schools, recognizing that we can
go through a learning process here. And I quipped that one of our
former colleagues said that ours is one business where you can never
admit to having learned anything because, obviously, if you admit to
having learned anything, you've flip-flopped.
The fact is we all are learning and we should be proud of the fact
that we've learned. I congratulate--I probably will hurt my friend Mr.
Miller by praising him here, but I will say that the process that he
has gone through on this issue of charter schools is something that I
believe is a very, very good and positive thing. It's something that we
all need to learn from, that experience that he had on the issue of
charter schools, to be willing to listen to our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle on a wide range of issues.
That is why I think that this rule, enjoying bipartisan support--we
have allowed many more Democratic amendments than Republican amendment
in the rule itself. We're going to have a free-flowing debate on this
issue, and then of course the very important intelligence authorization
bill. Then tonight, I hope we can have again these areas of agreement
so that we can get our fellow Americans who have been losing their
homes, their businesses, and their jobs back on track.
{time} 1310
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California laid down an excellent
framework for the potential of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction to accomplish their mandate; namely, bringing down tax rates
by eliminating loopholes in a way that effectively eliminates
expenditures in the Tax Code. For whether something is a subsidy or a
tax credit, it is very much an expenditure.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to join with my colleague, first of
all, to wish the President well and to work together in a bipartisan
manner to put Americans back to work, put them to work now, and keep
them working.
I am supportive of the Intelligence authorization bill for a number
of reasons dealing with the issue of investing in new positions to
select high priority needs as FBI surveillance, so increasing the
personnel. I'm concerned about the cuts in personnel. The language is
very appropriate. In these days, as we celebrate 9/11, I'm concerned
about what is appropriate.
I'm also interested in moving forward on diversity. We should ensure
that our intelligence community reflects the diversity of America, from
African Americans to Asians, Latinos, Muslims, people speaking
different languages, to be more effective to protect this country.
The DNI is going to conduct a review to determine the security
implications of moving intelligence systems. I think that is important.
I think it is important, as well, to collect information about drug
trafficking. And I certainly think it's important to again, as I said,
talk about the question of the work force.
I am concerned about the requests that I understand may be in the
bill on information about Guantanamo Bay detainees, information that
could undermine our security. And I am questioning the value of making
the Director of the National Security Agency, a Senate conferee, to
juxtapose that person in the midst of controversial politics.
But I am glad, and I thank Mr. Polis for his leadership on charter
schools. I'm proud to say that I've been to the Victory Charter School
in Texas, in Houston, the Harmony Charter School, the KIPP Charter
School, the Yes Charter School, and a school district, a public system
that I am working with, and I love public schools, I am a product of
public schools. The North Forest Independent School District, it's
finding its way to embrace and coalesce with charter schools.
What is the call for that? It is the education of our children with
the most important level of education ever, excellence. It is for our
children to pass tests, but it is for our children to think and to
create and to invent. And I think we can work with charter schools, in
particular, who are focusing on science, technology, engineering, and
math where there are young people who are actually doing medical center
level research, cures by middle schoolers and high schoolers.
So I hope that we will deal with the Intelligence bill. I associate
myself with the gentleman from Massachusetts. I'm concerned about the
human rights violations in Colombia, the monies that may be going to
the DAS, and the killing of trade unionists. It's all right to be a
neighbor, but it is horrible to take intelligence funds and be part of
the killing of trade unionists.
Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the whip, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I also thank the
gentlelady from North Carolina as well.
Mr. Speaker, while I would prefer us to be addressing a
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, today's legislation reflects
bipartisan support for innovation in public schools and improving
educational opportunities for students who still lack access to a high-
quality education.
I know this rule that we are dealing with deals with both bills. I am
for the rule. I think it's a rule that provides for two pieces of
legislation that enjoy bipartisan support.
The Chesapeake Public Charter School, a K-8 school located in my
district, has developed a year-round school model which embeds the arts
and environmental studies throughout its curriculum. This school hopes
to, one day, expand its successful model through its existing charter
with our local school system and would be able to do so with funding
from this bill.
As we consider this bill today, it's unfortunate that after 9 months
in session, however, we are still not bringing jobs bills to this
floor. So today, and throughout the fall, Democrats will offer Make It
in America amendments at every opportunity to highlight ways we can
create jobs and strengthen our economy.
Today, Democrats are proposing two Make It in America amendments. I
would say parenthetically that Mr. Garamendi had an excellent
amendment. It wasn't made in order. He's going to ask that we get to it
by the previous question.
Congressman Lujan's amendment, however, focuses on sharing best
practices in instruction and professional development in the STEM
subjects to develop a more competitive and highly skilled work force.
America needs that.
And Congresswoman Davis' amendment reminds us that the primary
objective of this bill is to use the innovation of charter schools to
improve educational outcomes so all students can make it in America.
The jobs of the future require a high-quality elementary and
secondary education, which lead to high-quality postsecondary education
and training components. We need to make sure that we are preparing
students for the diversity of jobs that awaits them, the jobs that will
bring home good wages, the jobs that will improve our economy in the
long term.
[[Page H5985]]
I believe charter schools can play a valuable role in that objective,
which is why I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate that. We've got a great charter
school dealing with science and technology in Apple Valley, California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has
expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. LEWIS of California. It's a fabulous school, and that model is
working with our local people creating opportunities for jobs, et
cetera. I like your idea. I may very well join you in some of those
amendments, but at least join you in supporting this bill.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, when I speak about Make It in America,
there is not a person on this floor, the most conservative, the most
liberal, and everybody in between, who is not for our young people and
all of our people making it in America. I'm hopeful that we can forge a
bipartisan coalition to promote legislation which will promote making
it in America.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman further yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has
again expired.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Presuming that, I mean, this is really a
good idea. If we can get all the teachers unions in California to join
us in this sponsoring of charter schools, then I'd really get excited
about it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to make Mr. Garamendi of California's
amendment in order.
I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I proposed to the Rules
Committee an amendment about making it in America, one more way we can
build jobs here in this country by using our own tax money.
In the charter schools legislation there is some $300 million a year
authorized for the construction of charter schools, the enhancement,
the improvement of those schools. Now, where will the material come
from? Where will the heating and air conditioning systems be
manufactured? Where will the lumber, the concrete, the other materials,
the high-tech equipment come from? Will it be American-made, or will it
be made over in China and imported into the United States?
It seems to me we're about to use $300 million of our tax money, that
is the American taxpayers' money, to build some schools, or to improve
some charter schools. All well and good. But why don't we create some
jobs in addition to that? Why don't we put into this bill an amendment
that simply says that the Secretary of Education, in prioritizing the
grants, shall give higher priority to those proposals that would use
American-made equipment, American-made jobs?
We can, and I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Lewis, for
agreeing that we ought to be making it America. This amendment was
rejected for reasons unknown to me by the Rules Committee, perhaps
known to them. And if Mr. Dreier were here, or maybe I should ask Ms.
Foxx, why was this objected to? Why was it not made possible to put
this amendment on the floor so that we can create American jobs?
I would note that we're 247 days into this session, and not one bill
has been put forward by the Republican majority to advance jobs. Here's
a little chance for us to do it.
{time} 1320
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the gentleman from California that
Republicans have passed many, many bills in this session that would
help to create jobs in this country.
I did a little research this morning on what has happened with bills
that have gone over to the Senate. A total of 28 bills have passed the
House and the Senate and been sent to the President for his signature.
Of those, only six were substantive bills. One of those was the 1099,
one was the continuing resolution, one was DOD appropriations, a couple
of bills were bills that came from here, one on lead for toys.
I think the gentleman from California needs to look to the other body
to see what is happening to the bills that are passing out of the House
that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans.
The problem is not in the House. The problem is in the Senate, that
as one headline said and one Senator said, the Senate is moribund, and
I believe that's where the problem lies. It is not with Republicans in
the House.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the urgent priority of this country, and it
should be of this Congress, is to get Americans back to work. There is
not a corner of this country that's not been severely afflicted by the
unemployment crisis in this country.
Mr. Garamendi proposes that we take a simple idea and put it into
this bill, and I think he's absolutely right.
Here's the idea. If we spend a significant amount of money, I think
it's $300 million, for the purpose of retrofitting and maybe building
some schools around the country, let's give a preference to schools
that use American-made products and American-made goods over those that
do not. I think that's a very commonsense idea. So if a school is going
to put in solar panels to become more energy efficient and they can
either buy the solar panels from a company here in the United States or
one in Asia, let's favor the school that buys the solar panels from the
United States to create jobs here. This is a simple and good idea. It
should be on the floor so that we could debate it.
Now, the dialogue I just heard was it's the Senate fault or it's this
one's fault. With all due respect to all of our colleagues, Mr.
Speaker, the days of whose fault it is are over. Long since over. And
the time has long since passed for us to get to work passing
commonsense legislation that puts the American people back to work. Mr.
Garamendi has proposed just such a commonsense piece of legislation.
I would urge people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can
consider Mr. Garamendi's amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 14\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise also to support the effort of my colleague Mr. Garamendi to
require that materials made in America be used to construct and
renovate the charter schools that we're talking about in this
legislation.
We have a serious issue in this country, in case the Republicans
haven't noticed, that we need to create as many jobs as we can. And
anybody who has made a speech about job creation these days, talking
about making it in America is a definite applause line. I would just
like to recommend that. Making it in America is something that really
has resonated with people all around this country.
Why would we take taxpayer dollars, when we could spend it on
products that are made right here, including the building materials
that we need to upgrade, to create more schools in our country, and buy
products that are made overseas and support jobs that are outside of
our country?
The issue in this bill of creating more schools is so important. In
the United States, schools on average are 40 years old and actually in
need of an estimated $500 billion in repairs and upgrades.
I'm actually introducing a piece of legislation next week that would
provide $100 billion dollars to repair, renovate, modernize America's
schools
[[Page H5986]]
and would create 400,000 construction and 250,000 maintenance jobs
alone.
But in addition, what we should be doing is rejecting this previous
question that's up before us so that we can make a good bill even
better. This is a bipartisan effort. We've heard from the other side of
the aisle that these are good ideas. Let's make it better. Vote ``no''
and let's add the Garamendi amendment.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act is not perfect. There
are some provisions that have already received a veto threat from the
President that need to be amended. Thankfully, the chairman and the
ranking member have worked together to submit a manager's amendment
that would do just that.
It is vital that this manager's amendment pass because of two
provisions in particular.
The first would make the Director of the National Security Agency a
Senate-confirmed position. This would unnecessarily politicize one of
our most critical intelligence needs. Traditionally, this position has
already been indirectly subject to confirmation through the Senate's
confirmation of military officers who have been promoted into the
position. We can't afford to damage the management of the intelligence
community in this manner.
The second provision would modify the reporting requirements
regarding Guantanamo detainees. This would require the Director of
National Intelligence to provide State Department cables to the
Intelligence Committees. While effective oversight is an essential role
of Congress, we also must not interfere with the ability of the State
Department to conduct effective diplomatic negotiations. Therefore, I
call on my colleagues to support the manager's amendment as well as the
amended version of the underlying bill.
I also want to thank, with regard to the Charter School bill,
Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for their excellent work both
on the bill as well as their manager's amendment that would improve the
bill in a wide variety of ways, including prioritizing States that
authorize charters to be their own School Food Authority so that they
can serve healthy meals to their students, including transportation
considerations to help ensure that kids have access, and that choice is
made more meaningful by ensuring that families who don't have the
ability to carpool or transport their kids to school also have choices
within the public education system.
This truly bipartisan bill and manager's amendment really exemplifies
what the House can do to support good public education and improve
student outcome.
I agree with my colleague, Mr. Hoyer, who said that this is a start.
While many of us would rather see a full reauthorization of ESEA, this
is a very promising start to what will hopefully be a very productive
session with regard to education, one of the most important goals of
this Congress as well as absolutely necessary to improve the economy in
the long run.
Unfortunately, one of the amendments disallowed by the Republican
majority under this rule is one that I proposed to help facilitate
charter schools in obtaining Federal competitive grant funding by
adding priority for States that allow charter schools to be LEAs, or
Local Education Agencies. Effectively, my amendment would have reduced
paperwork and overhead. If the school districts and charter schools
agree, the charter schools themselves could effectively function as
their own fiscal agent for Federal purposes and to compete for Federal
grants.
What happens now, and it works in most cases 9 out of 10 times--
unfortunately it's the cases where it doesn't work out that cause the
difficulty--is charter schools have to go through their LEA, their
authorizing institute, or their school district in order to apply for
Federal grants.
What does this mean? It means there's another set of bureaucrat's
eyes that have to see every proposal, another person that has to sign
off. Sometimes this can lead to unnecessary delays. At worst, it can
lead to missing deadlines if funding applications are submitted to
districts and not turned around in enough time to meet Federal
deadlines for grant funding.
So it would be nice to continue to work on this with the committee,
and I think that many of us would like to see charter schools
recognized as LEAs for purposes of Federal funding.
{time} 1330
I am proud to say that, in my home State of Colorado, we were able to
get this fixed in the last legislative session, and now charter schools
are recognized as LEAs. In fact, about half of the States allow charter
schools to be LEAs for Federal purposes.
A key goal of the bill is to ensure charter schools have equitable
funding as well. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment by
Mr. Garamendi of California, one which would give priority to eligible
entities working with charter schools that plan to use materials made
in America for the construction or renovation of school facilities.
Once again, it would make that amendment in order and allow for a
discussion and vote by the House on that amendment. Republicans blocked
this germane amendment last night in the Rules Committee by a party-
line vote.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment into 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 Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so we can help American workers and allow
this House to deliberate on an amendment that deserves debate in this
body.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule as well, having left off several
amendments that would otherwise improve these bipartisan bills.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 392 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution of this resolution, the amendment printed in
section 5 shall be in order as though printed after the
amendment numbered 8 in Part A of the report of the Committee
on Rules if offered by Representative Garamendi of California
or his designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent.
Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as
follows:
Amendment to H.R., as Reported Offered by Mr. Garamendi of California
Page 21, after line 24, insert the following:
``(3) Priority.--In awarding grants under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that
demonstrate a plan to require charter schools receiving
assistance under subsection (a) to use materials that are
made in America for the construction and renovation of
facilities.''.
(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.''
[[Page H5987]]
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, 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.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule.
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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 176, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 693]
YEAS--226
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
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)
Frelinghuysen
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
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
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
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
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
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 (IN)
NAYS--176
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
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
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hochul
Holt
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
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
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
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
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--29
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bass (NH)
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Burgess
Clay
Culberson
Giffords
Green, Gene
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Honda
Hoyer
Johnson (GA)
Lewis (GA)
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
Miller, Gary
Neal
Paul
Reyes
Roskam
Stark
Van Hollen
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1358
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. DICKS, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of
California, Ms. HOCHUL, and Ms. SEWELL changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. WOODALL changed his vote from ``nay to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 693, 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237,
noes 163, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 694]
AYES--237
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
[[Page H5988]]
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)
NOES--163
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hochul
Holt
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
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
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--31
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Bass (NH)
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Culberson
Denham
Giffords
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Hirono
Holden
Honda
Hoyer
Lewis (GA)
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Marino
McClintock
Miller, Gary
Neal
Paul
Reyes
Roskam
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Sullivan
Van Hollen
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1404
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. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 694 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.
Stated against:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 693 and 694,
had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________