[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 103 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4610-H4619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, STUDENT SUCCESS ACT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 303
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. 5) to support State and local accountability
for public education, protect State and local authority,
inform parents of the performance of their children's
schools, 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 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. In lieu of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce 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 Rules
Committee Print 113-18. 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. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each 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, may
be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action
thereon, 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 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1245
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 have
5 legislative days 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 303 provides for a structured rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce
Committee and I have been working to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. Our efforts in reauthorization have centered
on four principles: reducing the Federal footprint in education,
empowering parents, supporting effective teachers, and restoring local
control.
H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, ensures that local communities have
the flexibility needed to meet the needs of their students. This
legislation reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
also known as ESEA, for 5 years, while making commonsense changes to
update the law and address some of the concerns following the last
reauthorization.
Despite good intentions, there's widespread agreement that the
current law is no longer effectively serving students.
Instead of working with Congress to reauthorize ESEA, the Obama
administration began offering States temporary waivers in 2011 to
exempt them from onerous requirements in exchange for new Federal
mandates from the Department of Education.
These waivers are a short-term fix to a long-term problem, and leave
States and districts with uncertainty about whether they will again be
subject to the failing law, and if the administration will change the
requirements necessary to receive a waiver.
It is time to give students, parents, teachers, and school districts
certainty to make decisions and flexibility to make the best decisions
for their communities. H.R. 5 is a step in the right direction and will
provide this certainty and flexibility.
Since Republicans returned to the majority in the House in 2011,
we've held 20 hearings on the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The committee considered five reauthorization
bills in four markups in the 112th Congress, in addition to a markup
and favorabe reporting of H.R. 5 this year.
I'm pleased to work with my colleagues on the Rules Committee to
report rules for floor debate and the consideration of legislation that
promote transparency and participation.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill, H.R. 5, the so-called Student Success Act. The
[[Page H4611]]
Student Success Act is an ideological attempt to reduce the crucial
Federal role in K-12 education.
To be clear, there's no excuse for bad policy that interferes with
student learning and prevents opportunity from reaching all corners of
this land. There's no excuse for bad classroom practices at the local
level. There's no excuse for bad policies at the State level, and
there's no excuse for bad policies at the Federal level.
However, we should also make no excuses for good policies at the
State level, make no excuses for good policies that help improve
classroom practices at the Federal level.
Unfortunately, under this restrictive rule, many of the commonsense
amendments that would have helped improve this bill were shut out,
including an amendment that I authored that would combat bullying and
harassment against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, to
ensure that schools are a safe learning environment for all children.
Under this rule, other amendments that were offered by both my
Democratic and Republican colleagues were not included and not allowed
to proceed to the House floor for a debate.
My colleague, Ms. Foxx, said that ``local communities have the
flexibility they need to meet the needs of their students.'' She stated
that that was one of the goals of this bill.
I think the second goal that we should have with Federal education
policy is, yes, to give local communities the flexibility to meet the
learning needs of their students, but so, too, to not give local
communities the flexibility to continue to not meet the needs of their
students.
There are too many failing schools across our country--high schools
that, year after year, have dropout rates in excess of 50 percent;
elementary schools where kids are falling further behind every year.
We need to do everything we can as a society--that means at the State
level, that means at the Federal level, that means at the district
level--to make sure that, yes, the district has the flexibility and the
school has the flexibility to do what works, but not the flexibility to
continue to do nothing, which would only consign another generation of
American kids, particularly and disproportionately our most at-risk
families, to failure.
If the underlying bill becomes law, States wouldn't be required to
set performance targets based on student growth, proficiency, or
graduation rates. Effectively, it would allow States to define success
down, simply to make themselves or their districts look good. The bill
doesn't even define low-performing schools, nor does it establish
parameters for intervention or timelines for improvement.
I have not heard any Member of this body, on either side, argue for
Federal micromanagement. That's a straw man. We want to make sure that
reform-minded superintendents are armed with the tools they need to
make the tough decisions.
And there's no silver bullet in education. Sometimes it might be
converting it into a charter school, sometimes it might be changing the
staff, sometimes it might be closing a school, sometimes it might be an
extended learning day.
One of the most critical aspects of successful school reform, in
fact, is the local buy-in. And that's why I, as well as my colleague,
Ms. Foxx, would agree that the Federal Government dictating what they
should do is counterproductive towards effective school reform.
However, continuing to do nothing is a guaranteed continued recipe for
failure.
Mr. Speaker, we need to provide schools with more flexibility to
design school improvement systems than the rigid measures under No
Child Left Behind. I think we can agree on that. But we can't let them
continue to do nothing and fail children.
No child in our country should be trapped in a failing school with
little or no recourse or real choice. We need to mend accountability,
not end it.
This bill constitutes the Federal Government throwing up its arms and
simply letting the States define success downward, making themselves
look good, patting themselves on the back saying, ``Job well done,''
when more and more children are falling through the cracks.
We need a Federal role as an honest referee, a disruptive force to
break up school district monopolies. We need to use our limited funds
to give reform-minded school leaders leverage and resources and cover
that they need to ensure that failing schools are subject to dramatic
interventions that improve school quality.
No child should ever be trapped in a failing school. And we, as
adults, should not be finger-pointing, saying oh, that's the State,
that's the district, that's the Federal Government, that's your
principal's fault, that's your teacher's fault. That's not the answer.
The answer is to make the school work for the kids and make sure that
every family has access to a good school.
While No Child Left Behind certainly has its flaws, including the
problematic and wrongful definition of adequate yearly progress as a
benchmark for success, it, nevertheless, did move us forward when it
comes to serving low-income and minority students, students with
disabilities and English language learners, and provided a new layer of
transparency that prevented school districts from sweeping these
problems under the rug.
Unfortunately, here, with this bill, H.R. 5, it takes another step
backward, effectively excluding students with disabilities from school
accountability systems. Currently, there's a 1 percent cap, saying the
students with severe disabilities up to 1 percent of students can take
alternative assessments based on alternative achievements standards.
This bill removes that cap, meaning that school district or that
State, at their discretion, under this bill can simply say, you know
what? We don't think any of our IDEA students, any of our Special Ed
students can learn, so we're not going to include them in the
accountability metric. They don't have to take the test. Or if they do,
we're not going to count it. Or they can do an alternative test, and
we'll look at that and sign off.
And we will never know, Mr. Speaker, under this bill. It truly, in
our publicly-funded public education system, is continuing to meet the
learning needs of all kids, including those with disabilities or not,
which is why, across the disability advocacy community, there is strong
opposition for this bill.
It's rare that a bill can unite such disparate forces as the Chamber
of Commerce, organizations representing teachers, the civil rights
community, advocates for the disabled, all in staunch opposition to a
bill. Why?
Because the bill represents a step backward for public education in
this country. This bill doesn't invest in our Nation's teachers, the
most important frontline workers that provide a quality education for
kids across the country.
While, to its credit, it eventually replaces highly-qualified
teachers with a new teacher accountability system that's tied into
student success, which is a key component of my STELLAR Act that I
introduced with Representative Susan Davis, it fails to provide
teachers with the professional development and support they need to
succeed in the classroom.
And during the 3-year transition period, it does away with all
measures, indicators and requirements for teacher quality, including
getting rid of the definition of highly-qualified teacher. So for 3
years, our Federal taxpayer money that we are custodians of will go, in
part, to pay the salaries of people with absolutely no quality input or
outbased controls.
While I applaud the eventual replacement of the definition of highly-
qualified teacher, and most people agree that we can do better
measurement of teacher quality, the answer is simply not to throw up
our arms and say we're not going to look at teacher quality.
While H.R. 5 retreats on the significant and constructive Federal
role, Ranking Member Miller's Democratic substitute advances a
comprehensive vision of school accountability and improvement. The
Democratic substitute would ensure that schools take into account
student growth, proficiency rates, including disaggregation for groups,
including students with disabilities, English language learners,
minorities; design targeted interventions for low-performing schools;
partner with school districts to use evidence-based criteria to improve
school and classroom performance.
It is an advanced vision of school improvement that has received
broad unified support from the education reform
[[Page H4612]]
community, the civil rights community, and the business community.
The Federal Government must ensure that all students receive a high
quality, world-class education. We are a country. Education is under
the local control of school boards subject to the laws of the State. As
a Nation, we cannot abrogate on our responsibility to have a human
capital development strategy that allows us to compete with other
nation-states in the 21st century.
The Democratic substitute would ensure that schools set high
expectations and use quality assessments for students with
disabilities. We do not propose, in the Democratic substitute, nor does
President Obama support any kind of national standard or national test.
Certainly, some States have chosen to work together to develop core
common standards. Other States have developed other high quality
standards and assessments. The Federal role should be to not allow
States to define the success downward and capitulate the entire
generation and consign an entire generation of children to failure.
I'm disappointed the Rules Committee didn't make in order my Student
Non-Discrimination Act, which I introduced with Congresswoman Ros-
Lehtinen and 155 of our colleagues. When you have a bill that has so
many cosponsors, I would hope that the Rules Committee would at least
allow a debate and floor vote on this bill.
My Student Non-Discrimination Act would establish a comprehensive
Federal prohibition on discrimination in public schools based on actual
or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
Every day, across our country, tragically, kids who are perceived to
be gay or lesbian are subjected to pervasive discrimination, harmful to
both students and our education system. Surveys indicate that as many
as 9 in 10 LGBT students have been bullied.
Just this last week we lost another life to bullying. On Sunday, a
young man named Carlos in New Mexico took his own life after being
bullied and called derogatory LGBT names since the age of 8. It's hard
to imagine the torment that Carlos went through every single day. And
unfortunately, too many LGBT students and their families often have
limited recourses to fight this kind of discrimination that makes
schools an unsafe and unwelcome learning environment for them.
My amendment would simply provide protections for LGBT students to
ensure that all students have access to public education in a safe
environment, free from discrimination, free from harassment, free from
bullying, intimidation and violence.
I would have hoped that every Member of this body would agree that
there's a bipartisan consensus that, regardless of what people think of
divisive social issues like gay marriage or other LGBT issues, school
should be a safe place for all students to learn.
{time} 1300
I am pleased that the underlying bill includes constructive language
with regard to the expansion and replication of successful charter
schools. I'm also pleased that the committee made in order two
amendments I offered to improve this flawed bill. The first amendment
further improves the Charter Schools Program. I enjoyed working with
Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller on improving and modernizing
the Charter Schools Program. Both the underlying bill and the
Democratic substitute contain strong language around helping quality
charter schools grow and expand to meet the demands of the more than 1
million kids who remain on charter school waiting lists across our
country unable to attend the school of their choice.
A recent Stanford CREDO study found that charter schools that are
successful in producing strong academic progress from the beginning
tend to remain strong and successful schools as they grow and expand.
My amendment, which I'm offering with Mr. Petri, would allow charter
schools to receive Federal funding through the Charter Schools Program
to use their grant dollars for vital startup costs like professional
development, teacher training, and instructional materials. As a
charter school founder, I know that this additional flexibility
provided under our proposed amendment would really help get quality
charter schools off the ground.
The amendment also allows per-pupil revenue to be more portable
across school districts to provide States with the ability to move
towards more innovative multidistrict models, including online
education or competency-based education, if they so desire.
Finally, my amendment would ensure that charter schools are doing
substantial outreach to low-income and other underserved populations.
We know that many high-performing charter schools are already leading
in this regard in helping our most at-risk families achieve success. We
want to ensure that they continue to lead the way in providing access
and choice for more families.
I'm also pleased my amendment I offered with Representative Brooks
regarding computer science is made in order. My amendment with
Representative Brooks would clarify that Federal funds can be used for
computer science education. It's particularly important because it
relates to funding for teacher preparation and professional development
based on the bipartisan Computer Science Education Act, which
Representative Brooks and I introduced earlier this year.
In today's knowledge-based economy, it's more important than ever to
ensure our education system aligns with the demands of the 21st-century
workforce. We need high-quality teachers to have access to training in
all relevant fields, including computer science education.
I also worked with Mr. Petri on another amendment regarding charter
schools, which I withdrew. But I want to talk about some additional
changes that are included in our All-STAR Act that I look forward to
continue working with Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller to make
crucial changes on the Charter School Programs that were included in my
amendment with Mr. Petri.
The amendment I offered with Mr. Petri would offer improvements to
help grow and replicate high-quality charter schools that are
demonstrating outstanding results across the country. There's currently
6,000 charter schools serving more than 2.3 million students. Yet there
are over a million students on charter school waiting lists. My
amendment would have increased the overall authorization for this high-
impact, low-cost program to $330 million so that with our limited
Federal resources we have the maximum impact on increasing choice and
learning opportunities for families.
My amendment would also have allowed for the continuation of the
Charter Schools Program grants from the Replication and Expansion of
High-Quality Schools Program, a very successful program that helps more
families access the highest-performing charter schools.
In this time of austerity and constrained public resources, we need
to maximize the impact of every dollar spent by making sure we only
invest in what works, fostering innovative new approaches both for
results as well as for cost savings to achieve even greater gains in
student achievement. That means investing in those public charter
schools that are getting great results as well as allowing charter
school operators with a strong evidence base of student achievement,
particularly with our most at-risk kids and families, along with robust
management capacity, to replicate and expand so they can serve more
students.
I look forward to continuing the work with Chairman Kline and Ranking
Member Miller to include some of those priorities in the ESEA
reauthorization and further legislation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from the Education Committee and the great State of Wisconsin
(Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 5.
I am in frequent contact with educators in my district in Wisconsin.
One of the concerns I hear the most is that Federal money comes to
local schools and districts in a variety of funding streams, each with
its own restrictions and reporting requirements. I am constantly asked
if there's a way that we
[[Page H4613]]
can consolidate some of these funding pots so that schools can better
apply the funds to those areas where they will have the most effect.
These feelings are strongest in smaller or more rural schools, where
funding tends to be the most limited. H.R. 5 would give them that much-
needed local flexibility.
Wisconsin schools are doing a lot of innovative things to prepare
their students for success in the 21st-century economy. They know that
the nature of work is changing: jobs in manufacturing, where Wisconsin
is a leader, require critical thinking, the ability to be innovative
and to work with people of varying skill levels, and the ability to
communicate effectively. These skills were favorably noted in a 2012
National Research Council report and in a recent Gallup Poll that found
that those who have those skills are twice as likely to have higher
work quality than those who don't.
Wisconsin is a member of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a
coalition of States, education groups, and employers that's working to
ensure that students have these critical skills. I hear from educators
that these innovative programs help to bring to life the subjects that
students are studying in school, oftentimes renewing their focus on
core academics. Again, I also hear that schools and districts are
hamstrung by their inability to put Federal funds to use in these
innovative ways. So I'm pleased that the Student Success Act, through
its Local Academic Flexible Grant and in other ways, gives educators
the flexibility to pursue these innovative initiatives at the local
level.
I would also like to mention the subject of geography, which is a
core academic subject under No Child Left Behind, but has never
received the same level of support as other core academic subjects. The
National Geographic Society has invested millions of its own dollars to
help invest in the future of geographic education--a critical
investment, given the importance of geography to our national and
international well-being. It's critical that geography be on a level
playing field with other core academic subjects. This bill accomplishes
that goal by letting geography compete equally for funds to enhance the
professional development of teachers in this critical subject.
I, again, want to emphasize my support for the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor), a former member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
unceasing efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and H.R.
5 because the Republican bill fails America's students.
Mr. Speaker, America's public schools are the envy of the world.
We're fortunate to live in a country that believes that every child
should be educated and given the opportunity to succeed in life. Our
public schools are one of the best examples of American values. No
matter where a child comes from, no matter what challenges a student
faces in life--a disability, autism, poverty--that student can receive
a good education.
Our local public schools are largely community-based and locally run;
but the Federal Government provides important support, especially for
working-class communities and for students with disabilities and
learning challenges. We have important work to do to continue to
improve public schools and recruit good teachers; but under this bill,
Republicans want to go in the other direction.
The Republican bill before the House today proposes a harsh
prescription for students and families who seek better schools and
talented teachers. H.R. 5 guts education funding for students and
teachers by over $1 billion below last year's levels at a time when we
want high-quality curricula, and States and local school districts have
been challenged financially.
Back home in my Tampa Bay area district in Florida, I have over 200
title 1 schools, like Foster Elementary in Hillsborough County and
Woodlawn Elementary in Pinellas County. These are students from
working-class families. Over 90 percent of these students qualify for
free and reduced lunch. It is the longtime compact between the Federal
Government and our local schools that ensures support to these students
that do not come from wealthy families. The students who attend these
schools range from ones with special needs that require title 1 help to
work with exceptional education teachers; English Language Learners
that need a little extra help from translators; and students with
severe emotional behavior disorders.
The Republican bill retreats from these students and the
responsibility to education.
No Child Left Behind has been riddled with problems from the start.
Its one-size-fits-all policy hasn't worked, but this Republican bill is
not the answer. It's a step backward. And I urge my colleagues to
oppose the rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished
colleague from Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from
North Carolina for her excellent work on this measure and all of the
work she has done in committee. Dr. Foxx is such a skilled educator.
We're pleased to have her in our conference. I know that Chairman
Kline, who has really put a lot of effort into this bill, is so pleased
to have her.
I do rise to support H.R. 5. This commonsense bill helps parents,
teachers, and students. It will help prepare our children to compete in
the global workforce. It helps to right the wrongs of our broken
education system by bringing back flexibility to the system and
encouraging more effective teaching and learning in our schools.
I have to tell you that as a mother and a grandmother, as a classroom
volunteer and a homeroom mother for many years, I know how important it
is for our children. And the reason that we are bringing this bill
forward is because of concern and in preparing every child to compete.
I'm troubled by a recent report that says the U.S. ranked 18th out of
23 industrialized countries in the quality and quantity of high school
diplomas. These are all items that need our attention. The feedback we
have gotten through the years from No Child Left Behind's one-size-
fits-all mandate does not work. People do not want these decisions
being made in Washington. The Student Success Act would fix this by
repealing the Federal accountability system and restoring much-needed
local control. It would also stop the administration's act of coercing
States through Race to the Top funds and into adopting specific
national academic standards, otherwise known as Common Core. It would
put an end to that.
H.R. 5 would reverse the Federal footprint in our education system by
repealing the K-12 waiver schemes and the pet programs that have been
put in place. This is the right step that we should take for our
students for their success and educational opportunities.
Mr. POLIS. The gentlelady said the U.S. ranks 18th on the quality and
quantity of high school diplomas. This bill is a recipe to do even
worse--worse on the quality by allowing States to define success and
their standards down and worse in the quantity by removing graduation
requirements as one of the issues that the Federal Government looks at
with regard to the success of State formulas.
I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Chu).
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to
H.R. 5. This bill radically reduces the role of the Federal Government
in education at a time when we need to revitalize our education system.
It slashes over $1 billion in funding to teach our kids. It eliminates
accountability in our education system that ensures students graduate
from high school and those with special needs don't get left behind.
I am particularly concerned about the impact this bill will have on
community services that benefit the students struggling the most.
Studies show that when we don't address students' social and economic
disadvantages at schools, we undo the work that's achieved by having
good skills and teachers with adequate resources. An astounding two-
thirds of the achievement gap is due to factors outside of school.
Children are more likely
[[Page H4614]]
to succeed in schools when their comprehensive needs--nutrition,
health, and a safe and stable home--are met.
{time} 1315
These support systems--sometimes called ``wraparound services''--are
particularly important for low-performing and low-income schools that
greatly benefit from these services.
But instead of supporting programs that are scientifically proven to
help close the achievement gap, H.R. 5 takes away the designated
funding for them and lets States do with the money as they please. It
completely cuts funding for after-school programs. It eliminates social
and emotional programs that help keep our students safe, healthy, and
ready to learn. And with the money that's left? There's no guarantee
that it will be used to provide these services to students who need
them the most.
We shouldn't leave to chance whether a school will care about
students beyond their test scores. But this bill sets a dangerous
precedent by exempting the Federal Government from responsibility to
ensure schools adequately support students and families that face
challenges outside of school.
Instead of improving No Child Left Behind, this bill takes us even
further backwards. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and
the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to my
distinguished colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
rule as well as the underlying bill, H.R. 5, the Student Success Act.
I want to thank also, as others have, the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for her continued leadership on an important issue. And I also
would like to commend the gentleman from Colorado on his interest in
this legislation as well. Although we differ in opinions on what this
legislation would do, I believe it is a conversation that we need to
have.
You see, I have had the privilege to be married to a public school
teacher for 25 years. I also have three children who are the product of
a public school education, one of whom is a special needs child who has
spina bifida, who graduated just a few years ago. I was happily there
to present her with her diploma when she rolled across that stage.
We can talk about a lot of things today; but when it gets down to it,
it's about the kids in our country and how they're educated and what
role this body is to play in that. I think that's an honest
conversation.
As I speak today as a parent, education policy is near and dear to my
heart because I believe our democracy was founded on the principle that
every child should have the opportunity to learn. And I believe that
the goal of our educational system should be to instill in our children
a love for learning that they will carry with them throughout their
entire life.
There is nothing I love better than to walk into a room and see my
child reading a book--a 14-year-old, a 17-year-old reading a book--or
learning. That is what we cry for, as parents.
Whenever I'm home in Georgia, I encounter numerous folks who tell me
their concerns about the endless expansion of our Federal Government--
not just its size, but its scope and power. Like the parents and
teachers I've heard from lately--and also live with--I'm very concerned
about the top-down approach that this administration in Washington
seems to be taking on education. Probably the best known example is the
Common Core Standards, which has been mentioned already, which
Washington wants to use as a national litmus test for States seeking
funding. Again, it's a carrot-and-stick approach. When we look at this,
is that what we want us to be in the business of doing?
As you will hear further from my colleagues, there is plenty of
concern about the content of this so-called Common Core; and I could
speak a lot about that, but I choose to focus on one thing and that is,
I can't wrap myself around the fact that there are so many who wish to
see Washington's role in education expanded and beyond the level it
should be, when that role should not exist on the level that it does.
In fact, my friend from Colorado, he made this statement and he said
that the Federal Government needs to be an honest referee. I appreciate
that. However, I disagree in the fact that using an honest referee to
use a carrot-and-stick approach with money and standards is not the way
it should work.
I'm old school. As I've said before, I believe the referee on a
football field should be not seen, and this goes very much against
that. The referee should be there, but not be the center of attention,
which Washington has become in education.
Make no mistake, I believe our education system should be a global
leader; and in order for our students to be competitive on the world
stage, our schools must have high standards.
We have seen firsthand in this country what occurs when our students
fall behind in STEM education. That cannot continue to happen. We must
raise the bar and demand excellence in our schools. However, education
standards should be developed at the State and local level by those
intimately familiar with the needs of the children and our educational
policy, not from inside the beltway.
The beauty of public education is that every child, regardless of
race, gender, religion and geography, has the opportunity to learn. Our
Nation is great because our people are great. And if we as a Nation
fail our most basic responsibility--providing education for our
children--then our people and our Nation will no longer be a shining
light in a dark world.
I am proud to be a member of a party that believes that the best
educational opportunities exist when the Federal Government gets out of
the classroom, when the teachers are allowed to teach children how to
learn, not how to bubble an exam.
I am tired of having to watch my wife for 20-something years worry
more about filling out a form than actually having to be able to do her
lesson plan the next day because she is inundated with the
requirements. I'm proud that we can teach and that we can learn and
that we can promote that, not on a Federal level, but on a State and
local level.
Current Federal law clearly prohibits Federal approval or
certification of academic standards to ensure State and local control
over the classroom. Apparently, and unfortunately, this law just
doesn't seem to matter up here. They decided that they know better than
parents and teachers. As a parent, and as the husband of a school
teacher, that thinking doesn't fly with me.
Our education system has its roots in the State and local government
for a good reason. No one has a stronger interest in the child's
success than his or her parents. No one knows what really works in the
classroom like our teachers. The community surrounding a child
naturally understands that student's needs and has a deep desire to do
what it takes to ensure his or her success. I support the Student
Success Act because it places education decisionmaking where it
belongs--in the hands of parents and teachers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an 30 additional seconds.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot this country can do to improve education
in our Nation and to empower our kids to take on the challenges of the
21st century. But those changes must be considered and debated and
adopted by the parents whose children will live with the consequences
of those choices.
Decisions of this magnitude rightfully belong not in Washington, but
on Main Street, and the Student Success Act rightly restores the proper
means of education policymaking in this country.
I strongly support H.R. 5 and support this rule.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, think of the excitement next month as so
many young Americans return to school; and what this legislation does,
it would greet them with a big cut in funds to our most disadvantaged
schools.
I can tell you that in Texas, Governor Perry and his cohorts will
redirect these funds from disadvantaged
[[Page H4615]]
students faster than you can say ``oops.'' And you will find other
Governors across America with a similar tepid support for public
education--the same kind of people who have come to this floor and
called them ``government schools'' instead of public schools--you'll
find them seeing cuts to disadvantaged students as the easiest way to
plug a State budget gap.
While No Child Left Behind is flawed, removing support for
economically disadvantaged students is not the way to fix it. At
Wheatley Middle School in San Antonio, in one of our poorest
neighborhoods, title 1 funding has helped Principal Mary Olison and her
team make real progress--a 30 percent improvement in math, reading and
science scores; now the district's second best record in attendance;
and disciplinary actions have been reduced 75 percent.
Those educators are out there struggling. Now is not the time to
remove the support they need to do their very difficult jobs. Cutting
this support would turn back the clock on the progress there and across
America.
Title 1 funding has already been cut for the next school year. This
really is a ``leave more students behind act'' that will lock in those
cuts and allow State diversion of much-needed funds.
And really, this bill turns a blind eye to the achievement gap, to
the racial disparities in our classrooms, and it particularly ignores
the needs of students who want to learn English by cutting the English
Language Learners program, which helps many of our Latino neighbors in
Texas.
With the damage that has already been inflicted in my home State to
public schools, now is not the time to reduce Federal aid to our
schools that are the most disadvantaged.
Mr. Speaker, this bill needs to be sent to detention. It needs to be
given an F. It needs to be rejected. It is not the way to strengthen
education.
I believe in our public schools as a way to bind our communities
together. We need to be investing more, not doing less.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Over the last four decades, the Federal Government's role in
elementary and secondary education has increased dramatically. The
Department of Education currently runs more than 80 K-12 education
programs, many of which are duplicative or ineffective.
As a school board member, I saw how the vast reporting requirements
for these Federal programs tie the hands of State and local leaders who
want to make the best education available for their students.
Since 1965, Federal education funding has tripled; yet student
achievement remains flat. More money is clearly not going to solve the
challenges we face in education.
Our children deserve better. It's time to acknowledge more taxpayer
dollars and more Federal intrusion cannot address the challenges facing
schools. H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, will streamline the Nation's
education system by eliminating more than 70 duplicative and
ineffective Federal education programs; cutting through the
bureaucratic red tape that is stifling innovation in the classroom; and
granting States and school districts the authority to use Federal
education funds to meet the unique needs of their students.
The bill also requires the Secretary of Education to identify the
bureaucrats in Washington who run the programs to be consolidated or
eliminated in H.R. 5 and eliminate those positions to ensure that the
bureaucracy shrinks with the programs.
Additionally, this legislation will take definitive steps to limit
the Secretary's authority by prohibiting him or her from coercing
States into adopting academic standards like the Common Core. It also
halts the executive overreach in the waiver process by prohibiting the
Secretary from imposing extraneous conditions on States and local
districts in exchange for a waiver.
The Student Success Act protects State and local autonomy over
decisions in the classroom by removing the Secretary's authority to add
new requirements to Federal programs.
Mr. Speaker, Federal policy should not tie the hands of local
educators to make the best decisions for their students and
communities. H.R. 5 is a step in that direction.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the ranking member of the Education and Workforce
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if a school said that African American
children could not take advanced math, it would be wrong and illegal. I
think most of us agree if a school said that Jewish children couldn't
enroll in a certain program, that would be wrong--and it is illegal.
In most States in this country, though, if a school says that a child
who is gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, or perceived to be,
there is no legal protection for that child. Now, this is not simply a
theoretical problem. LGBT children have been bullied and harassed and
mistreated across this country. The stories are heartbreaking, and they
often end in family tragedy, like suicide.
There is a serious proposal that would remedy this injustice that was
sponsored by 156 Members of the House of Representatives and there was
an attempt to make that in order for debate and a vote. It should have
been, and it was not.
This is a serious issue. Frankly, unless the majority leadership
agrees there would be a separate and independent chance to move that
bill, this was the chance to move that bill.
No child should be left behind. Certainly, a child should not be left
behind because of their race, their religion, their ethnicity. That
should extend to their sexual orientation as well, and we should have
had a chance to vote on that.
For that reason and many others, I oppose this rule.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, Republicans do agree that schools should be
safe places for all students to learn. However, as my friends and
colleagues know, the amendment to which they have been referring had
several parliamentary problems when it was introduced.
To begin with, it was not germane to the underlying bill.
{time} 1330
Additionally, it violated CutGo provisions in House rules. My
understanding is that although the CutGo issues were ultimately
resolved, the amendment was not redrafted to fix the germaneness
problem.
For these reasons, the amendment was not made in order.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. FOXX. No, not until I finish.
However, I appreciate the gentleman's strong feelings on the issue
and respect his desire to protect students.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this bill, and I'm proud of the open and
transparent process by which it has been brought up for consideration.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, what I was going to discuss with the
gentlelady is that the CutGo issue was resolved, as she mentioned, and
waivers that are routinely granted on a broad variety of amendments
simply could have been approved by the Rules Committee, as is
customary, and advanced this amendment to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for
yielding and for his tremendous support.
First of all, I agree that we must take a critical look at No Child
Left Behind and address its numerous shortcomings, but the Republican
proposal is not the answer.
This bill guts education. It violates the civil rights of students,
and it does not support educators. It leaves students with
disabilities, low-income students, students of color, English-language
learners, migrant students, and LGBT students out in the cold.
The so-called Student Success Act, which really is the Letting
Students Down Act--that's what it really is--guts education. It guts it
by $1 billion below the fiscal 2012 level, locking in, really, these
already detrimental sequester cuts. It would fail to support meaningful
improvements and reforms
[[Page H4616]]
at the Nation's lowest performing schools. This bill does not support
students, it does not protect students, and in no way does it guarantee
access to equal quality public education.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say, the rule fails to make in
order the student nondiscrimination amendment, which would protect
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students across the country
from harassment and bullying. Every child deserves these protections.
So we should go back to the drawing board on this bill. We should
call it for what it is, and that's ``letting students down.'' That's
what this bill does. And we should really look at how we invest in our
future through education rather than making it more difficult to
improve student achievement.
Once again, this bill begins to erode our system of public education;
it violates our students' civil rights; it does not support our
teachers and our educators; and finally, let me just say, it fails to
prioritize STEM education that would eliminate the Mathematics and
Science Partnership program, which really is the only program at the
Department of Education focused solely on teacher professional
development in STEM subjects.
I hope that we vote against this rule and also the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our colleagues have said that H.R. 5 guts education funding. That is
not accurate. H.R. 5 authorizes funding for all programs under the act
as the final appropriated amount for ESEA programs in FY 2013. Those
amounts are level-funded for the 6-year life of the bill.
While authorizing spending for the act at the final FY 2013 level,
H.R. 5 prioritizes Federal spending by protecting core programs. Title
I aid for the disadvantaged, as well as targeted population programs:
migrant education, neglected and delinquent, English-language
acquisition, Indian education, and rural education are authorized at FY
2012 levels.
Additionally, because the bill consolidates many existing programs,
funds currently spent on those lower priority programs have been used
to increase the authorization for these core programs. As a result, our
bill would authorize more spending--I'll emphasize--more spending for
these core programs in FY 2014 than the President's own FY 2014 budget
proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. This
education bill fails students in so many ways it is difficult to know
where to begin.
In addition to putting forth a proposal that will cause so much harm,
the majority denied many opportunities for amendments and improvements
to the legislation that we are considering today.
Among those amendments that were denied consideration was one offered
by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) to prohibit discrimination
in public schools based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or
gender identity.
The Student Nondiscrimination Act is an important piece of
legislation that will protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
students across our country from harassment and bullying and would hold
schools accountable for failing to protect our Nation's children.
The Federal Government has a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to do all
that we can do to ensure the safest and best possible environment in
which students can learn. When students are bullied or harassed because
of who they are, they are denied the opportunity to achieve their full
potential.
Refusing to include provisions of the Student Nondiscrimination Act
means we are failing our duty to protect all of our Nation's children
and to guarantee them a safe and nurturing environment in which to
learn.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 continues the charter school, magnet
school, and tutoring programs to provide parents with more choices in
educating their children.
Along with parental involvement, encouraging and supporting effective
teachers in the classroom is critical to student success in quality
education. Most Americans can regale you with stories of their favorite
teachers who made a lasting impact on their lives. H.R. 5 also supports
the development and implementation of teacher evaluation systems that
are designed by States and school districts with input from parents,
teachers, school leaders, and other stakeholders.
In addition to evaluation systems, the Student Success Act reduces
confusion and duplication by consolidating teacher quality programs
into a single, flexible grant program to be used by States in school
districts to support creative approaches to recruit and retain
effective educators.
The recurring theme throughout this legislation is empowering the
people closest to students to make decisions for their communities and
ensuring that the law is flexible to meet the needs of diverse States,
regions, and student populations.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
H.R. 5 takes a U-turn for educational policy.
It is interesting, our friends on the Republican side of the aisle in
a farm bill a couple of weeks ago managed to unite environmentalists,
farm groups, and taxpayer advocates in unanimous opposition to their
proposal, and now they have done it again. They brought together
business, education, civil rights groups, and a broad cross-section of
organizations that don't agree with each other very often to oppose
this bill. In part, it is what happens when you simply refuse to work
in a bipartisan and cooperative fashion, as the committee used to do.
I have a very vivid example of the impact of this shortsighted
approach. I represent Grant High School in Portland, Oregon. They won
the national competition for the U.S. Constitution contest. That
project of ``We the People'' has been zeroed out by Congress, and
programs like this are not going to come back if we approve the
approach of this bill.
It not only continues to undercut programs for education, the overall
spending for education is, in fact, dramatically reduced. It keeps the
sequestration cuts. We are going to lose over $10 million this year in
Oregon, for instance. And worse, it locks in the post-sequestration
funding level through 2019.
In addition, it takes away protections for key priority programs,
dismantling provisions that would ensure equity. This legislation
undermines the Federal partnership with the State and local communities
to support education. That is why it is opposed by such a wide array of
groups and why this House should reject it as well.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is really puzzling why our colleagues continue to misrepresent
what H.R. 5 does when the public can read the bill and know the truth.
For example, our colleagues have said that H.R. 5 eliminates
protections for students with disabilities, low-income students, and
students from major racial and ethnic groups. This charge is simply
false.
The Student Success Act maintains annual testing requirements in
reading, math, and science. It also maintains the law's requirement
that schools in districts disaggregate and report subgroup data on
student performance. This ensures student achievement results for
special needs students and other traditionally disadvantaged
populations are transparent and parents and communities have the
information they need to evaluate their schools properly.
Critics of this approach believe in the now widely discredited
premise captured in No Child Left Behind that the Federal Government
can and should devise an accountability system appropriate for all of
the nearly 100,000 public schools in the country. Frankly, Mr. Speaker,
that is one of the most widespread criticisms of what we have known as
No Child Left Behind, which was really a reauthorization of this bill
several years ago. It is puzzling to me that they continue to criticize
what is
[[Page H4617]]
bad about what exists and yet say they want to do it again. It doesn't
make any sense.
H.R. 5 is based on a different premise that true education reform
comes not from the top down, but from the bottom up.
Acknowledging that Washington can't fix schools does not mean we are
backing away from our strongly held belief that schools should have
standards to which they are accountable and that those standards should
be equally applied across all school groups. It means we must empower
and trust States and communities, those closest to the classroom, to
develop an accountability and school improvement system that best meets
the educational needs of their students.
All of the wisdom of the world is not in Washington, D.C., Mr.
Speaker. It is out there in the country. It is out there with the local
people, with the American people who are very bright and know how to do
things for themselves.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentlelady if
she has any remaining speakers.
Ms. FOXX. We do not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of the Speaker how much time
remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
First, in response to the gentlelady's, Ms. Foxx's, allegation that
Members on our side of the aisle have misrepresented the bill, that is
completely false.
The bill does, in fact, remove the 1 percent cap for students with
disabilities. A school district or a State can say, We are not even
looking whether students with disabilities are making progress at all.
Perhaps we are excluding every child with an IEP; we are excluding
every child that receives IDEA funding, Federal funding, for taxpayer
money that we are custodians for.
In addition, it allows States to define success downward. Rather than
having meaningful college and career-ready standards, a State can
simply say, We write our standards such that we are going to make all
of our students brilliant because they are all going to pass it, then
we are going to pat ourselves on the back and say, ``Job well done.''
Those kids might not be ready for college and they might not be ready
for careers. We, as a nation-state, cannot afford not to do better with
regard to serving our public kids.
This bill slashes education funding. I don't know how you call moving
$3.6 billion worth of programs into a $2 billion block grant anything
less than slashing education funding.
What is being eliminated? School improvement grants, turning around
some of our lowest performing schools and giving them the opportunity
to succeed. Race to the Top, which has encouraged reforms at the State
level, including my home State of Colorado, which replaced teacher
tenure with an evaluation system, with bipartisan support.
{time} 1345
Investments in innovation: replacing these important, tangible
programs that are some of the highest-leveraged dollars that the
Federal Government spends, which is amorphously block-granting money to
States, sending more money into the ``system'' without any reforms or
any accountability required.
As elected officials who are concerned about our Nation's welfare and
as providers of 10 percent of education funding, we in the Federal
Government have an obligation to provide transparency and
accountability and, yes, to be a referee in the K-12 education system.
We have an obligation to ensure that schools cannot fail kids year
after year. We cannot retreat from the goals of No Child Left Behind,
and while it was flawed, it has shined light on achievement gaps for
minority and low-income students, and has unleashed State- and local-
based reforms that we are just beginning and continue to benefit from.
We need to use what we have learned from our experiences under No Child
Left Behind to build on what reform-minded States and districts are
doing. We need to encourage flexibility, improve and streamline the
Federal role, invest in what works, and change what doesn't work.
I look forward to working together across the aisle to provide more
transparency, accountability and to ensure funding equity in our
Nation's schools. H.R. 5 would bring us back to a time in which adults
had every incentive to hide poor student performance and students were
left to attend failing schools for generations--without choice and
without recourse.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat this
partisan bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on this restrictive rule and the
bill. I encourage my colleagues to move forward in improving our public
education system.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Many of my Republican colleagues and I feel that the Federal
Government should be out of education altogether, but that is not what
we are recommending here. Rather, H.R. 5 is a reasonable first step in
empowering the people closest to the students to make decisions for
those students.
That being said, as long as taxpayer money is being used by the
Federal Government to fund education, Congress must ensure that funding
recipients are being held accountable for how they use that hardworking
taxpayer money. Washington must live within its means just as families
all across this country do, and limited resources require wise
stewardship. Again, those closest to the students--parents, teachers,
principals, local school boards, school district leaders, and States--
know what works best for their diverse student populations.
The Student Success Act recognizes this by allowing States to develop
their own accountability systems that incorporate three broad
parameters: an annual measure of the academic achievement of all public
school students against State academic standards; an annual evaluation
and identification of the academic performance of each public school in
the State based on student academic achievement; a school improvement
plan to be implemented by school districts when schools don't meet the
State standards. These broad accountability measures not only serve to
steward taxpayer money carefully but ensure parents have the
information needed to make the best decisions about their schools'
education.
Let's give control back to the people who know the needs of their
students and communities best, and let's pass this rule and underlying
bill. We tried it the other way, and it hasn't worked. Control from
Washington has not brought us improvement in our educational programs.
Mr. Speaker, my background as an educator, school board member,
mother, and grandmother reinforces my belief that students are best
served when people at the local level are in control of education
decisions. I also believe that education is the most important tool
Americans at any age can have. I was the first person in my family to
graduate from high school and go to college, where I worked full time
and attended school part time. It took me 7 years to earn my bachelor's
degree, and I continued to work my way through my master's and doctoral
degrees.
From my own experience, I am convinced this is the greatest country
in the world for many reasons, not the least of which is that a person
like me, who grew up extremely poor in a house with no electricity and
no running water, and with parents with very little formal education
and no prestige at all, could work hard and be elected to the United
States House of Representatives.
No legislation is perfect, and that is why I look forward to working
with my colleagues to address their concerns and improve the Student
Success Act through the amendment process. However, I have never been
one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and while H.R. 5 isn't
perfect, it's a step in the right direction of reducing the Federal
role in education, empowering parents, teachers and local school
districts, and increasing local control. That's why I am a proud
cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this rule and the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
[[Page H4618]]
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.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 303, if
ordered, and on approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 192, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 364]
YEAS--232
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--192
Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Conyers
Diaz-Balart
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pallone
Young (FL)
{time} 1416
Messrs. RANGEL, GARCIA, and Ms. GABBARD changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. TURNER and Ms. SINEMA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is
on the resolution.
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. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 190, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 365]
AYES--230
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--190
Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
[[Page H4619]]
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Braley (IA)
Conyers
Diaz-Balart
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
Hudson
Lynch
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pallone
Stewart
Young (FL)
{time} 1424
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. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________