Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 32 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)

[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

[[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]]

____________________