[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1126-H1135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 529, SECTION 529 COLLEGE SAVINGS 
   PLANS AMENDMENTS; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, STUDENT 
                  SUCCESS ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 121 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 121

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 529) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve 529 plans. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after 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 
     Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further 
     consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant 
     to a subsequent order of the House.
       Sec. 3.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of March 2, 2015, relating to a measure 
     making or continuing appropriations for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2015.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of March 1, 2015, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules as though under 
     clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure making or 
     continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The gentleman from Georgia is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my 
friend, 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.

                              {time}  1245


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot going on in this rule today, 
a lot to be proud of.
  I would like to start by thanking the folks on the Parliamentarian 
staff and Mr. Steve Cote on the Rules Committee. Folks don't pay a lot 
of attention to what goes on down here sometimes, what goes on behind 
the scenes, in order to bring a bill to the floor. We did a little 
extra work this time around. I am grateful to folks for working with me 
to get that done.
  House Resolution 121 is a closed rule, but it makes in order the 
consideration of two bills. One is H.R. 529, a bill that passed by 
unanimous consent out of the Ways and Means Committee, that goes into 
these college savings plans and corrects some provisions that made it 
difficult for folks to redeposit money into those plans--again, all 
about trying to educate our children, to make sure they have the 
opportunities that we would want for them.
  The second provision made in order by this rule is the general debate 
of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. Folks may not know the Student 
Success Act yet, Mr. Speaker, though they will. It will become as 
normalized of a term as No Child Left Behind.
  That was the last time we reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe we will find much 
disagreement in this Chamber about the need to go back into that 
language now, 13 years later, and make some improvements in order to 
better serve our children.
  We might disagree about what those improvements are, but we know it 
is time to go back and get into that language and really try to make a 
difference for those families, students,

[[Page H1127]]

and schools back home. H.R. 5 intends to do just that.
  This rule also provides suspension authority for any time through 
March 1 to bring up a resolution that either makes appropriations for 
or continues appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.
  You heard a lot about it during the 1 minutes this morning, Mr. 
Speaker. What we have is Department of Homeland Security funding which, 
as you know, funds so much of the immigration services function of our 
government.
  As you know, a Federal judge has said that the plans the President 
has laid out cannot be completed lawfully. This House went forward and 
said: If it can't do those things lawfully, we are certainly not going 
to fund them in this bill.
  Now, the Senate has not even been able to bring that bill up for 
debate, blocked on the Senate side from any discussion whatsoever.
  We are going to hopefully find a resolution between now and the end 
of this week. I don't know when that resolution is going to come. When 
that resolution comes, I don't want to see this House delayed in 
bringing that resolution to the floor. Again, we have already done our 
work. My hope is the Senate can pass that bill, and we can go ahead and 
send it directly to the President's desk.
  Whatever those machinations may need to be, this rule makes bringing 
an additional provision in order as soon as that language becomes 
available. That is maximum flexibility to do what I think folks on both 
sides of this Chamber want to do, and that is to ensure the steady, 
continuous, deliberate functioning of this government.
  Mr. Speaker, No Child Left Behind, it was passed by a Republican 
House and a Republican Senate and sent to a Republican President for 
his signature. Today, that same Republican House is bringing forward a 
rewrite of that bill.
  As much as we all have a love and affection for children, as much as 
we want public education in this country to succeed, sometimes, we 
don't get it right.
  Again, I want to celebrate the bipartisanship in that. It is not 
everybody just looking to find somebody to blame. I think folks went 
into that process trying to do the very best that they could; but, in 
fact, we ended up with some top-down solutions that did not serve our 
districts as well as we would have hoped.
  I am very fortunate, Mr. Speaker. I come from a district with 
wonderful public schools, just wonderful public schools. In fact, we 
are the fastest growing congressional district in the State of Georgia.
  It is not because of any particular strong business presence, though 
we have a tremendously strong business presence. It is not because of 
our location in some pleasant area, though it is a particularly 
pleasant area. It is because our school systems are second to none.
  It is hard when we have to have these conversations about funding for 
local schools because the money that I spend on these children is money 
that I am borrowing from these children.
  It has to be an investment in these children. It has to be something 
that enables them to succeed even more tomorrow than they are today 
because I am borrowing it from their future. I am mortgaging their 
future in order to invest in them today. We all want those dollars to 
be used as well as they can.
  It would be easy to have a conversation about funding children to 
say: Well, if $1 is good, then $2 must be better, and if $2 is good, 
then $4 must be better, and if $4 is good, then $1 million must be 
better, and if $1 million is good, then $1 trillion must be better.
  I would dispute the attestation of any colleague who can find that 
direct correlation between dollars and performance. Dollars are 
critically important, and this bill provides those, but performance is 
tied to parents, it is tied to teachers, it is tied to principals, it 
is tied to communities. We cannot mandate that performance. We can only 
try to help those local folks succeed.
  I know a lot of my colleagues are concerned that unless we mandate a 
solution from Washington, we will allow local communities to fail. I 
know that concern is heartfelt. I don't come from one of those 
communities.
  The community I come from says: Washington is not getting it so 
right, but, trust us, we will take care of children down here because 
no one in Washington loves our children more than we do.
  Again, we see that.
  There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that children are going to succeed 
in this country, but there is an achievement gap. There is a gap, Mr. 
Speaker, depending on what your ZIP code is, between what success we 
expect to come from your family and what success you can actually 
attain.
  I come from a county, Mr. Speaker, that is widely diverse, that has 
all the economic challenges you can imagine and all the economic 
successes that you can imagine as well. We come together to make sure 
that no child is left behind and to make sure that no child is held 
back.
  We have both schools that are succeeding in ways that I could stand 
on this floor and brag about for hours, taking students from which the 
system expects so little and creating an opportunity for them to 
succeed so extraordinarily. I would like to see that replicated in 
school districts across the Nation. I see it back home in my school.
  But we also have the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and 
Technology, GSMST. U.S. News & World Report names it the third best 
high school in the United States of America. I, of course, think U.S. 
News & World Report got it wrong. We are the absolute best high school 
in the United States of America.
  A majority of that student body, Mr. Speaker, are minority students. 
A majority of that student body had an opportunity to go anywhere in 
the county they wanted to go, but they stood in line, hoping to win the 
lottery to get out of a school that was already performing well to get 
into this school where they could be exceptional.
  Mr. Speaker, there are children standing in line across this country 
waiting to be exceptional. This bill aims to clear that line away and 
allow every child in America to achieve the excellence that you and I 
both know they deserve.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like very much at this time to be 
able to accommodate the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, 
Mrs. Lowey. She was going to be scheduled to speak earlier. I am going 
to allow that she go forward now to discuss something that is very 
important, and then I will proceed with my opening, if the Speaker will 
allow.

  There are only 3 days left until funding for the Department of 
Homeland Security expires, which will shut down many of the crucial 
operations that keep our country safe.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment to the rule that will allow for consideration of a clean 
Department of Homeland Security funding bill. With such serious 
consequences, it is time to put politics aside and prioritize the 
safety and security of the American people.
  To discuss that particular aspect of the proposal, I am very pleased 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this House to 
immediately take up and pass a clean funding bill for the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Delaying the full-year bill limits the Department's ability to 
advance the Secretary's unity of effort initiative designed to improve 
coordination in our security missions; limits the ability of the 
Secretary to move ahead with the Southern Border and Approaches 
Campaign; creates uncertainty regarding ICE's capacity to detain and 
deport dangerous criminals; complicates the Department's ability to 
deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border 
stations; delays implementation of the new security upgrades at the 
White House and hiring increases of the U.S. Secret Service; delays 
terrorism preparedness, my colleagues, and response grants for State 
and local public safety personnel and from fusion centers.

[[Page H1128]]

  I understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle feel quite strongly about the President's use of executive orders 
on immigration policy; but do they have the courage of their 
convictions to look the first responders they represent in the eye and 
to tell them that they are holding up critical assistance to 
firefighters, law enforcement, EMTs, and emergency managers because of 
a fight that is ideological over immigration?
  This is disgraceful. The Homeland Security bill should never have 
been held hostage with only 3 days left until the Republican shutdown. 
Hasn't this gone on long enough? Isn't it time to abandon this failed 
strategy and pass a clean Homeland Security bill?
  To that end, I urge this whole House to join me today in defeating 
the previous question so that my colleague Mr. Hastings can offer an 
amendment to provide a clean, full-year appropriations bill for the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  I rise, obviously, in opposition to the rule and underlying bill 
because neither of these measures will keep the Department of Homeland 
Security from shutting down in 3 days, something that I am sure is of 
vital interest to my friend from Georgia who is an advocate, 
continuously and has been since being on the Rules Committee and here 
in Congress, of having an open process.
  I would only urge that we understand that the last Congress, the 
113th, was the most closed Congress in the history of all of the House 
of Representatives; yet, at this point, in this, the 114th Congress, we 
find ourselves in this position. In the last Congress, 38 percent of 
the rules were closed at this point, six out of 16.
  As of today, this House has approved 75 percent of its rules that are 
closed. In other words, this Congress is on a path to be twice as 
closed as the last, which had the most, in history, closed rules.
  Now, my friend Mr. Woodall certainly understands that, and every 
Member of this House understands that. A lot of times, constituents 
hear us, and it sounds a whole lot like Washington speak, but the fact 
is, just simply, that when a rule is closed, as this one is, with the 
exception of one portion that is open for yet another provision in the 
measure, H.R. 5, but when a rule is closed, that means all of the other 
Members, all of your constituents who do not have an opportunity if 
they so choose, are precluded from offering an amendment to the base 
bill that is being discussed.

                              {time}  1300

  Congress has 3 days to act before we shut down; and truthfully, I 
don't believe that my friends on the Republican side are crazy enough 
to shut down the government at this point, so I think something is 
going to happen. I don't know what.
  It is not like this debacle caught us by surprise. It was obvious way 
back when Congress funded the rest of the government for the year but 
funded DHS for only a few months. Yet each week my Republican friends 
continue to consider bills that will do nothing and go nowhere. And 
now, without a road map out of this quagmire, my Republican friends are 
threatening to double down on their politics by shutting down the 
agency responsible for our national security, yet somehow we find 
ourselves talking about completely unrelated measures.
  You can disagree with the President--and many of you do, and 
sometimes some of us do. Great. It is a beautiful free country that we 
live in--but don't put our national security at risk to do it.
  Now, I have heard my Republican colleagues' talking point--oh, no, 
don't worry about national security; most of the DHS employees will 
still work, and very little will change--but that is just a guess, 
because those employees will be expected to work without pay.
  Among those who are expected to work without pay are more than 40,000 
Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers, more 
than 50,000 TSA aviation security screeners, more than 13,000 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement law enforcement agents and 
officers, more than 40,000 Active Duty Coast Guard military members, 
and more than 4,000 Secret Service law enforcement agents and officers.
  Footnote right there. Very occasionally when we are talking budget 
matters and when we are talking authorization and appropriations, we 
talk about the need for certainty for the agencies that have to 
implement the measures that are before them. Well, that could not be 
truer at any point any more than with DHS needing that certainty as 
well.
  To add insult to injury, when all this gets fixed--and it will need 
to be fixed--we will need to pass another measure to retroactively 
ensure that they receive their paychecks. But until then, there is no 
way for them to know when they will be paid. That kind of gamble is not 
the best way to ensure the stability of our national defense, and it is 
not fair to ask of the men and women keeping us safe.
  We talk a lot about job creation here in this institution. My friends 
across the aisle gut clean air and water protections in the name of job 
creation. In the name of job creation, my friends hack away at the 
policies implemented to keep big banks from preying on hardworking 
Americans. If, by chance, DHS shuts down, approximately 30,000 
employees would be furloughed. That is 30,000 families with jobs taken 
away.
  Who knows how long a shutdown will last. We have already had months 
to address this lapse in funding. Why do we do this? Why is it every 
time we get ready to do something important, we play brinksmanship, we 
come up until the day of? It is really the kind of holding up of our 
process that is deleterious to the good of this country.
  Just because DHS employees are furloughed or not being paid but still 
must go to work, that doesn't mean that their mortgage payment or their 
car payment or any other bills are going to go away. What are they 
supposed to say? ``Don't worry. I will pay you retroactively''? You 
can't run your household that way, and we certainly should not be 
running our government that way. For the life of me, I cannot 
understand why my Republican friends will not join House Democrats in 
supporting clean legislation to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  So, after all that, what do these two education bills that are in 
this particular rule have to do with keeping DHS open? I have no idea. 
I consider them to be important, but they don't have anything to do 
with what is the most germane issue before us today, the most pertinent 
issue.
  If the goal is to make college more affordable, there is no reason to 
focus on provisions used by only 3 percent of families. We need to make 
higher education more affordable for all Americans. Moreover, my 
friends have yet to explain what makes these 529 provisions so 
important that they are willing--listen to me carefully--to add $51 
million to the deficit for these particular measures, $51 million added 
to the deficit that they talk so much about.
  The other measure, H.R. 5, makes even less sense. It would have 
catastrophic consequences for our Nation's most vulnerable youth and 
their educators. I respect my colleague from Georgia immensely. I 
respect his intellect immensely. I am proud that his schools are doing 
extremely well in the community that he is privileged to serve. But I 
can tell you, based on what I know, that any changes to the No Child 
Left Behind program must adhere to the spirit of the law. In Florida, 
we didn't only leave children behind; we lost them and couldn't find 
them.
  Somehow or another, we keep changing these things without having the 
accountability and the transparency. We cannot and we should not leave 
any child in America behind. Children with disabilities, English 
learners, families with less financial resources, and those from racial 
and ethnic minority groups of underserved communities all deserve 
quality education, and our Nation would be better for it if they all 
received quality education.
  These two bills are distractions from the main event, side shows for 
the center ring of the circus. It is time for Congress to focus on the 
things that matter, because even as our economy grows stronger, we 
still have plenty of real work to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1129]]

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Just to be clear--we are down here talking about education today--I 
share my friend's passion for proper funding of this government. This 
House passed its funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security 
on January 14--January 14. This isn't something that has happened to us 
this week. January 14, the House did its business. The Senate has tried 
over and over and over to bring up a bill, and the Democrats haven't 
allowed them to even have the debate on the bill.
  This all being said, this is a bill that refuses to fund what a 
Federal Court said would be illegal to do. How in the world we have 
been able to define the House work product that refuses to fund what 
the court said it would be illegal to do as somehow the wrong bill to 
bring to the floor is just a testimony to the messaging machine that my 
friends had. I wish we had more of that machine here. With that, Mr. 
Speaker, I would like to get back on the topic of the day, what does 
matter for our children back home.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
rule and of both of the bills that this rule brings to the floor: H.R. 
529 and the Student Success Act. I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I am especially pleased that the Student Success Act is a major 
rewrite of the No Child Left Behind law. I was the only member from the 
Tennessee delegation--the 11-member delegation in the House and Senate, 
and I think one of 45 in the House--that voted against the original No 
Child Left Behind law, which was a great overreaction to failed school 
systems in a few of our Nation's biggest cities, and we certainly 
didn't need it in east Tennessee. That, much to my surprise, turned out 
to be one of the most popular votes I ever cast among public 
schoolteachers in east Tennessee.

  I am here primarily today to speak in support of H.R. 529, which this 
rule also includes. Richard Vedder, an economist from Ohio University, 
wrote a few years ago a book called ``Going Broke By Degree,'' talking 
about how difficult it was to pay for higher education in this country 
today. Around the same time, U.S. News & World Report came out with a 
report that said college educations were almost becoming out of reach 
for most middle class families. We need to be doing everything we can 
to help families pay for college education, and we certainly don't need 
to be encouraging students to go further into debt.
  It shocks students at the University of Tennessee when I tell them 
that it cost me $90 a quarter my first year at the University of 
Tennessee, $270 for the whole year. I heard the minority, the respected 
minority leader, Mr. Hoyer, give a speech one time. He said his first 
year at the University of Maryland it cost him $87 a semester.
  But then in the mid-1960s, the Federal student loan program came in, 
and the colleges and universities around the country started using that 
as a way to tamp down any opposition to tuition or fee increases, and 
college tuition and fees have just gone out of sight since that time.
  I have been speaking out for years about how harmful the Federal 
student loan program has become for college students and their 
families. Now many others are saying the same thing. Kathleen Parker, 
writing in The Washington Post in January of 2013, said:

       Since 1985, the cost of higher education has increased 538 
     percent, while the consumer price index (inflation) over the 
     same period has gone up 121 percent.

  That is four-and-a-half times as much on the increases in college 
education.
  Floyd Norris, writing in the international New York Times last 
February said: ``Student loans are creating large problems that may 
persist for decades. They will impoverish some borrowers and serve as a 
drain on economic activity.''
  Hedge fund manager James Altucher wrote: ``We are graduating a 
generation of indentured'' students.
  I can tell you, when I went to the University of Tennessee, people 
could work part time, as I always did, to pay all their tuition and 
fees. Almost no one got out of school with a debt; now, almost everyone 
does. Total outstanding student loan debt is now well over a trillion 
dollars. I think it is $1.3 trillion, and some people think it may be 
one of the next bubbles to burst.
  So what does H.R. 529 do? It makes it easier for families to save for 
college educations. We need to do this. We also need to give bigger 
grants and so forth to the universities and colleges that hold their 
tuition and fees below the rate of inflation. We need to incentivize 
the colleges and universities to stop raising their tuition and fees at 
four and five times the rate of inflation. Until we do that, H.R. 529 
is the least we can do to help out the middle class families of this 
country that are having so much trouble paying for their students, 
their children to have college educations.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I support these two 
bills.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell both of 
us how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 17 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), a good friend of mine, a member of 
the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Florida for allowing me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, Student Success 
Act. This bill would continue unnecessary and arbitrary K-12 education 
funding cuts and erode accountability for historically underserved 
students. We should be preparing the next generation, but this bill is 
a step backwards in achieving academic excellence for 90 percent of the 
Nation's students.
  Mr. Speaker, diverse organizations across not only my State, the 
great State of Ohio, but across this Nation, educational organizations, 
educational funding organizations, parents and lawyer advocacy groups, 
business leaders and groups, disability and exceptional children's 
groups, and the NAACP and civil rights organizations are against this 
and very concerned about this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the way we fund all of our schools and educate all of 
our young scholars is a reflection on our values and commitment to 
equality.

                              {time}  1315

  Access to education is a civil right. It is the key to the middle 
class and to a prosperous nation. This bill would constrain educational 
opportunity and equality. We need an education bill that improves 
education and that invests in all of our children. H.R. 5 fails our 
children, Mr. Speaker, and H.R. 5 fails our Nation.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my 
friend that I can feel her heart in those words. I am just tremendously 
proud to serve in a place where people really do care about the next 
generation, making sure that we are able to achieve those goals. I 
regret we are not finding the agreement on that today, but I am 
certain, as long as there are folks here who believe in achieving that 
goal together, as my friend does, we will get there.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be joined today by a freshman Member 
from the Georgia delegation, an incredibly hardworking Member.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come before 
you to talk about and support H.R. 5, the Student Success Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this is legislation to replace No Child Left Behind, to 
restore local control over education, and to empower parents and local 
education leaders to hold schools accountable for effectively teaching 
students.
  I spent last week in my district, and I visited elementary and high 
schools, specifically schools that would be affected by the Student 
Success Act. These schools were located in some of the most 
impoverished areas of my district. I listened in classrooms, held 
forums to hear from parents and local education leaders, and spoke to 
teachers and administrators about the challenges they are facing. What 
I heard across the board was that the Federal Government and their 
compliance issues in the classroom are holding back our educators from 
effectively teaching our students.

[[Page H1130]]

  Top-down education mandates have failed to help students and have 
forced educators to waste valuable time and resources filling out 
paperwork and worrying about compliance with Federal requirements. 
Instead of this one-size-fits-all approach, we need policies that 
enhance teachers' abilities to focus on the individual needs of the 
students. We need bottom-up reforms that give authority to the parents, 
teachers, and local education leaders, who work with their children and 
students every day and who know them best.
  H.R. 5 includes a number of conservative reforms to push back against 
the growing reach of the Federal Government into schools and to restore 
local control. It replaces the current national accountability system 
for school performance and replaces it with State-led performance 
standards. It gets rid of more than 65 unnecessary or ineffective 
Federal education programs, repeals Federal requirements for teacher 
quality, and protects local and State autonomy over decisions in the 
classroom. H.R. 5 returns responsibility to parents, States, and local 
leaders to hold schools accountable instead of Washington bureaucrats.
  I saw that example work in a city that is in one of the most 
impoverished areas of my district, where parents actually lined up at 
3:30 in the morning to enroll their students into theme schools. Each 
elementary school was broken up into a theme. The superintendent there 
had no idea that parental involvement would be that significant. I was 
there to witness the success of this theme school concept. I asked: 
Where did this idea come from? It did not come from Washington. It did 
not come from the Federal Government. It came from the creativity of 
the teachers and from the input of the parents and of the local 
administrators.
  Mr. Speaker, no one knows the needs of students better than the 
people who work and spend time with them every day. By empowering 
parents, teachers, and local education leaders, H.R. 5 takes strong 
steps forward in putting the control of education back in the right 
hands and in helping to provide every student with the opportunity to 
receive a good education. There is no debate today that every child 
deserves a good education. The debate is whether the Federal Government 
is in charge or whether we empower our local citizens to get the job 
done.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring 
up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill 
that would keep the Department open so it can carry out its essential 
mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has 
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Does the gentleman from Georgia yield for the purpose of this 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield for the purpose of 
debate only. If we can pass this rule, this rule makes in order the 
immediate consideration with the same-day authority of any funding 
bills that come before this House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis), my friend.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this is pretty immediate. We need to get this 
done this week. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring 
up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill, 
that will keep the Department open so we can keep the American people 
safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia yield for 
the purpose of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, if I understood my friend, he is asking 
that we bring up a bill that will fund what it is the court said would 
be illegal to fund. I cannot yield for that kind of request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring 
up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill, 
that would keep the Department open so it can carry out its vital 
mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia yield for 
the purpose of a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back my time when my 
friend is. As soon as we pass this resolution, it will be in order to 
bring up any additional funding bills that come before the House today, 
but I cannot yield during this debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished leader of the Democratic Caucus, for 
purposes as she sees fit.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring 
up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill, 
that will keep the Department open so it can carry out its mission of 
keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Georgia has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. DeSaulnier) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding 
bill, that would keep the Department open so it can carry out its 
mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Georgia has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Roybal-Allard), my classmate and good friend, for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
House bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security 
funding bill, that would keep the Department open so it can carry out 
its mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Georgia has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding 
bill, that would keep the Department open so it can carry out its 
mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Georgia has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), my classmate and good friend, for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the House bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security 
funding bill, that would keep the Department open so it can carry out 
its mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Georgia has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a new 
Member of Congress who is on the Oversight Committee.

[[Page H1131]]

  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 5. The legislation 
represents a significant backward step in the efforts to help all of 
our Nation's children and their families prepare for their futures.
  I speak as a parent, as a grandparent, and as a past school board 
president. H.R. 5 abandons the historic Federal role in education at 
elementary and secondary levels. It is the role of ensuring the 
educational process of all of America's students, including students 
from low-income families, students with disabilities, English learners, 
and students of color. It also fails to maintain the core expectation 
that States and school districts will take serious, sustained, and 
targeted action, when necessary, to correct achievement gaps and to 
reform low-performing schools.
  Additionally, H.R. 5 fails to identify opportunity gaps or to correct 
inequities in access to resources and supports that students need to 
succeed, such as challenging academic courses, excellent teachers and 
principals, after-school enrichment or expanded learning time, and 
other academic and nonacademic supports.
  The bill's caps on Federal education spending would lock in recent 
budget cuts for the rest of the decade, and the bill would allow funds 
currently required to be used for education to be used for other 
purposes, such as spending on sports stadiums or tax cuts for the 
wealthy.
  Finally, H.R. 5 fails to make critical investments for our Nation's 
students, including high-quality preschool for America's children, 
support for America's teachers and principals, and investment in 
innovative solutions for the public education system.
  For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 5. It would deny Federal funds to 
the classrooms that need them the most, and it fails to assure parents 
that policymakers and educators will take the action students need when 
they are not learning.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have not had an opportunity to meet the gentlewoman from Michigan, 
but because I serve on the Rules Committee, I have had an opportunity 
to see all of the amendments that she has submitted for this bill. I 
know one of those amendments that she submitted is to make sure that 
all of our learning plans take special note of children in foster care 
and to make sure those folks are not forgotten, and I am grateful to 
her for her attention to that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from Florida if he has any further 
speakers remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I do.
  Mr. WOODALL. Then I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a member of 
the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. ELLISON. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and thank the 
gentleman for his long service.
  Mr. Speaker, the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965 was created to address the enormous inequality in America's 
educational system, which created widespread poverty and segregation. 
Today, we know that we are still not educating Black and Latino 
students at the same level we educate White students. Fifty years after 
the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, educating 
all children, regardless of their backgrounds, is still one of the most 
important challenges we face as a nation.
  That is why equity must start at the heart of any attempt to overhaul 
our education system, but the Student Success Act does little to help 
kids in Minnesota who are struggling in schools with too few resources. 
Rather than eliminating the disparities in our education system, the 
bill today will only increase the achievement gap and leave behind 
students from low-income neighborhoods and students with disabilities.

                              {time}  1330

  Education matters, far beyond the individual student. Three-fourths 
of the return on early education goes back to the community and ensures 
a healthier society and more stable economy.
  One of the biggest gaps in literacy in the U.S. is between the 
children of college-educated and non-college-educated parents. We must 
be more committed to maximizing the potential of all students. Our 
students and teachers deserve better. I urge that we all oppose H.R. 5 
so we can create education reform legislation that ensures every 
student can realize their goals and dreams.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am grateful to the chair for permitting me earlier to allow Mrs. 
Lowey to speak to the previous question. As I indicated, if we are not 
successful in defeating this measure then I am going to ask unanimous 
consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with 
extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question, if I may.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' when 
we get to this.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), my 
classmate and good friend.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise again to urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question on the rule, amend it, and make in order H.R. 861.
  We are just 3 days away from the Department of Homeland Security 
being without the funds it needs to protect our Nation. Secretary 
Johnson and agency heads have warned us that if the continuing 
resolution to fund the Department expires, national security operations 
will be disrupted and essential personnel will be required to work 
without pay. They also warn that passing another CR will not address 
the uncertainty of being able to meet our long-term security needs.
  Democrats have a responsible solution. Two weeks ago, Appropriations 
Committee Ranking Member Nita Lowey and I introduced H.R. 861, which 
contains the precise language of the November 2014 bipartisan bill 
negotiated in good faith by the chairs and ranking members of the House 
and Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittees.
  H.R. 861 is cosponsored by every House Democrat. This bill would pass 
the House, pass the Senate, and be signed into law by the President. 
All it needs is for the Republican leadership to do the responsible 
thing and bring H.R. 861 to the floor for a vote. By doing this, we 
will demonstrate to the American people that we know our Nation's 
security takes priority over politics and unrelated policy debates.
  To let funding for Homeland Security expire or, instead of a full-
year funding bill, take the easy way out by kicking a viable solution 
down the road with a continuing resolution, is to fail the American 
people and the trust that they have placed in us as Members of Congress 
to protect them and our country from harm.
  Let's pass H.R. 861 today.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, there are 3 days left until the Department of Homeland 
Security will shut down. As I have said earlier, I don't believe that 
is going to happen. I believe my friends will be about the business of 
making sure that it does not occur. I hope they do because our country 
needs to make sure that we are not in any insecure position going 
forward.
  Notwithstanding that, the brinksmanship continues, and we are here 
considering two bills that will go nowhere. That, to me, is the state 
of play right now. If my friends want to pass these education measures, 
they need to take care of business first. And it is time to quit 
messing around.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a list of extraordinary organizations in this 
country that are against H.R. 5. I lift from a list that I will insert 
into the Record the names of the Congressional Tri-Caucus; the American 
Association of People With Disabilities; the American Association of 
University Women; the American Federation of Teachers; the American 
Foundation for the Blind; the Association of University Centers on 
Disabilities; the Autism National Committee; the Center for American 
Progress; the Children's Defense Fund;

[[Page H1132]]

the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund; Easter Seals, which 
most of us contribute to; the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education 
Network; the NAACP; the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the 
National Association of School Psychologists; and the National Down 
Syndrome Congress.
  Disability plays a major role in this particular legislation, and the 
fact that all of these organizations are standing up saying that they 
are opposed to it should get our attention.
  In addition, the United Negro College Fund, the Leadership Conference 
on Civil and Human Rights, and the United States Chamber of Commerce.


                          Opposition to H.R. 5

       Congressional Tri-Caucus, The Advocacy Institute, 
     Afterschool Alliance, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination 
     Committee, American Association of People with Disabilities, 
     American Association of University Women, American Federation 
     of Teachers, American Foundation for the Blind, Association 
     of University Centers on Disabilities, Autism National 
     Committee, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Center for 
     American Progress, Center for Law and Social Policy, 
     Children's Defense Fund, Committee for Education Funding, 
     Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Council of Great 
     City Schools, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, 
     Democrats for Education Reform, Disability Right Education 
     and Defense Fund.
       Easter Seals, Education Post, Education Law Center, First 
     Focus Campaign for Children, Gay, Lesbian and Straight 
     Education Network, Human Rights Campaign, The Bazelon Center 
     for Mental Health Law, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 
     Under Law, Leading Educators, League of United Latin American 
     Citizens, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational 
     Fund, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
     National Association of School Physcologists, National Center 
     for Learning Disabilities, National Council on Independent 
     Living, National Council on Teacher Quality, The National 
     Center on Time and Learning, National Congress of American 
     Indians, National Council of La Raza.
       National Coalition for Public Education, National 
     Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome Congress, 
     National Education Association, National Urban League, 
     Partners for Each and Every Child, Poverty & Race Research 
     Action Council, Public Advocates Inc., Stand for Children, 
     Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, TASH, Teach Plus, 
     TNTP, The Education Trust, United Negro College Fund, The 
     Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, U.S. Chamber 
     of Commerce.

  Mr. HASTINGS. All of these people are opposed to this measure, and 
yet we find ourselves going forward. It is time for us to get real in 
this Congress, stop having closed rules, and let all of the Members in 
this body participate in the decisional process as we argue measures 
that are needed on behalf of our country.
  This is a great institution, and the people that serve here are 
absolutely wonderful people, but somehow or another we have gotten 
stuck. And by getting stuck, we are not able to do the things that are 
vital for the Nation. We need to unstick it and get on with the 
business, knowing that we can sit in a room together and come to 
conclusions not only about education, but about energy and every aspect 
of American life that we have a responsibility for.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have lots of agreement with my friend from Florida. I always do. I 
am always a little surprised by how much I agree with him when he comes 
down here to talk, but we do need to unstick this place.
  We are talking about two issues today. One is H.R. 5, the Student 
Success Act, where every Member in this room wants to see our children 
succeed. Every Member in this room wants to see the achievement gap 
closed, and yet we grapple with how to achieve that goal together.
  We have also in this rule, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 529. That measure passed 
unanimously out of the Ways and Means Committee. We found a problem, 
and we found a solution that we could agree on together to move it 
forward. It is moving forward.
  And in the tradition of being unstuck, I am told that just in the 
last few minutes the Senate has found a pathway to move forward on a 
DHS funding bill. Again, we passed that bill back on January 14. The 
Senate has been struggling to find a pathway forward. I don't mean a 
pathway to pass it. I mean a pathway to even debate it. Apparently, we 
have seen that wall be broken down here in the last few minutes, and I 
am glad to hear that.
  There is a role to be played, Mr. Speaker. There is a role for this 
House to play in our constitutional Republic. There is a role for the 
Senate to play and there is a role for the White House to play. That is 
true when we are talking about Federal education policy. It is true 
when we are talking about Homeland Security policy. It is true when we 
are talking about immigration policy. I am not always satisfied with 
how well we in the House defend that constitutional prerogative.
  Again, we are here today to talk about H.R. 5, which is going to fix 
a bill passed by an entirely Republican infrastructure here in Congress 
that today Republicans disavow as being a terrible mistake. They wish 
we could have done better. I am glad we are striving to do better. It 
is not a Republican issue, it is not a Democratic issue. It is an 
American issue. And what could be more American than trying to help our 
public schools succeed?
  You hear a lot of worry in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. You hear folks 
worried that if we change this provision or if we change that 
provision, what will be the impact on those children who right now are 
threatened by a substantial achievement gap in this country? But in the 
same moment, Mr. Speaker, someone will stand up on the other side of 
the aisle talking about those very same children and say: If we do not 
change these provisions today, we will sentence these children to a 
lifetime of underperformance, of not being able to meet their full 
potential.
  I don't question anyone's motive on this floor. In fact, I am 
grateful for the passion that folks have on this floor.
  This rule is only step one of H.R. 5, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad for 
that. When my colleague from Florida spoke earlier about the closed 
nature of the process and how much better and brighter this institution 
is when the process is opened, he is exactly right. He is right every 
time he says it, and I am right every time I say it. It is absolutely 
true.
  It is not fast. It is not efficient. Arguably, sometimes it even 
borders on dysfunctional. But it is the right thing to do to in order 
to end up with the best product that we can at the end of the day. And 
to the degree that we are able to do that, Mr. Speaker, I believe we 
will continue to strive to do that. This bill today is an example of 
that.
  This rule, Mr. Speaker, just so folks know what they are coming to 
vote on, doesn't deal with the amendments to the Student Success Act. 
We are planning on going back to the Rules Committee this afternoon for 
a completely new hearing in order to make as many amendments as we can 
available to the underlying bill. This rule is only to have general 
debate on H.R. 5 before the amendment process begins and to have debate 
on H.R. 529, that bill that passed unanimously out of the Ways and 
Means Committee hearing.
  So often we come down here and we are talking about divisive issues, 
Mr. Speaker. I am glad to be down here today talking about something on 
which we can agree: a good bipartisan bill coming out of Ways and 
Means, an opportunity to open up the process and have voices be heard 
on H.R. 5 today and tomorrow.
  The gentleman from Florida had it right, Mr. Speaker. I am blessed to 
be from a part of the country where folks understand that education 
isn't just something. It is everything.
  Don't talk to me about loving opportunity in this country if you 
don't have a commitment to education. Don't talk to me about lifting 
folks up from this rung of the ladder to this rung of the economic 
ladder if you don't have a commitment to education. And don't talk to 
me about taking somebody else's dollars and spending them on education 
and thinking that alone is going to create better outcomes for that 
child.
  You need money, absolutely you do, but you need that commitment 
locally. You need the commitment of teachers, you need the commitment 
of principals, you need the commitment of mothers and fathers. You need 
the commitment of communities. And we have yet to figure out how to 
mandate that commitment from Washington, D.C.
  I am grateful that I live in a community where we figured out how to 
grow it from within. You can walk into the worst school in my district, 
Mr. Speaker, and you will find folks headed off to

[[Page H1133]]

Stanford on scholarships--first-generation Americans; you will find 
folks headed off to the University of Chicago on full scholarships--
folks who come from generational poverty; you will find folks headed 
off, of course, to the University of Georgia, the finest institution in 
the United States, because they want to be close to their family and 
they want to invest in the community that has been so good to them. 
Hope lives there. Opportunity lives there.
  I am grateful to Chairman Kline and the folks on the Education 
Committee for doing what they can. It is not all that I would like to 
see, but to do what they can to get out of the way of those innovators 
in my community, to do what they can to allow folks to experiment with 
some things and find out what works, as we have, and then take those 
local ideas and spread those ideas locally, do what they can to prevent 
the Federal Government from saying: We know best how to educate 
children, and instead turning the Federal Government just into a 
funding stream, where we can, to say: You know how to educate children. 
We trust you.
  So often we conflate issues in this body, Mr. Speaker. The issue is 
not that children can't learn. They can. The issue is not that public 
schools can't teach. They can and they do. But there is an issue with 
generational poverty. There is an issue with an achievement gap.
  I am not sure that H.R. 5, no matter who crafted it and how long we 
work to do it, I am not sure that we can solve that problem with H.R. 
5. In fact, I don't believe that we could--not with any Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act bill.
  We are doing what we can today, and I hope we will be back in this 
institution tomorrow to do more. Goodness knows, we do a lot of things 
in this town that disadvantage that next generation of Americans. I am 
proud today to be working on at least one bill that will do something 
to advantage those young people and their future.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 121 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     861) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, 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 Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 861.
                                  ____


        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 Democratic minority 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.''
       The Republican majority may 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.

  Mr. WOODALL. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 121, if 
ordered, and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1020.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 181, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               YEAS--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer

[[Page H1134]]


     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     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)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Byrne
     Hinojosa
     Lee
     Long
     McNerney
     Rice (NY)
     Roe (TN)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Speier
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1411

  Ms. Bass, Mr. Sires, and Ms. Pingree changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). 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. HASTINGS. 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 243, 
noes 178, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               AYES--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     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)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blumenauer
     Byrne
     Hinojosa
     Lee
     Long
     McNerney
     Rice (NY)
     Roe (TN)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Speier
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1418

  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.

[[Page H1135]]



                          ____________________