[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 33 (Thursday, February 26, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1180-H1192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, STUDENT SUCCESS ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 125 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 125

       Resolved, That 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 further 
     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. No further 
     general debate shall be in order. In lieu of the amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 114-8, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each such further amendment shall be considered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, may be withdrawn by its proponent at any time 
     before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such further amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the 
     House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1245


                             Point of Order

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration 
of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his point of order.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against House 
Resolution 125 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act. Section 426 of the Budget Act states that the 
Rules Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 
425 of that same act. House Resolution 125 states: ``All points of 
order against such further amendments are waived.'' The resolution, in 
waiving all points of order, waives section 425 of the Congressional 
Budget Act, therefore causing a violation of 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentleman from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this point of order revolves around this 
entire bill being an unfunded mandate for the States; but, frankly, Mr. 
Speaker, this is about the work of this body and the work of this 
country.
  Rarely in my time in Congress has this body proven itself as detached 
and reckless as we do today. We are just over 24 hours away from an 
automatic shutdown of one of our Nation's greatest defense systems to 
keep the American people safe, and this body--one of only two bodies 
with the authority to prevent that shutdown--has no plan.
  President Obama made a suggestion last year that we treat families 
humanely, that we retain the best and brightest of each new generation, 
we welcome those willing to fight for their citizenship, just as we 
welcomed my great-grandfather and yours. He did that because this body 
failed to move forward on a profamily, pro-America agenda.
  These are not novel concepts. We stand on a Nation settled, built, 
and grown by immigrants. When the President acted to give immigrants 
across this country hope, consistent with actions taken by prior 
Presidents, he acted to uphold not only the law, but one of our 
greatest American traditions.
  Yet, touting a fundamentally antifamily and un-American agenda, 
Republican House leadership has made endless attempts to prevent the 
President's lawful action from taking place. With each repeated attempt 
to override our constitutional checks and balances, House Republicans 
are playing games with our time and taxpayer money and, right now, 
frankly, playing games with our national security.
  Time has kept this body from focusing on real issues facing our 
Nation. The security of our Nation should not be sacrificed for a 
political agenda, nor can the livelihoods of those who put themselves 
on the line as our first responders and to protect American soil.
  A failure to fund DHS would block critical assistance from reaching 
snowstorms and wildfires. It could mean a delay in FEMA funding to 
rebuild communities after disasters like the floods that affected my 
hometown of Boulder and nearby towns of Loveland and Longmont. It could 
impede air and ground travel safety and mean withholding of pay from 
already overworked TSA and CBP workers.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate has come to an agreement, by a vote of 98-2, 
on consideration of a clean DHS funding bill. I am a cosponsor of a 
similar bill in the House. The bill extracts politics from the 
conversation about immigration in exchange for the interests of the 
American people.
  It removes the irrelevant policy riders that undermine the lawful 
authority of the President of the United States and, instead, focuses 
on keeping the Department of Homeland Security open through the end of 
the fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, this House has the opportunity to bring forward a clean 
DHS funding bill. We can always continue with Republican political 
stunts after we secure the safety of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, thank the 
gentleman for raising the point of order.
  Keeping American families safe is the first responsibility of 
Congress, but Republicans have decided that appeasing the anti-
immigrant Tea Party extremists is more important than protecting our 
homeland.
  Just consider one moment--every House Democrat cosponsoring clean 
legislation to fund DHS. It is clear, therefore, that there are 
sufficient votes to pass a bill immediately and keep DHS funded and 
open. However, House Republicans continue to block consideration of a 
clean bill--a clean bill--DHS bill and sustain their latest 
manufactured crisis--because this is a manufactured crisis.
  Think about it one moment. Three--not one--three former DHS 
Secretaries--Secretary Ridge, Bush; Secretary Chertoff, Bush; and 
Secretary Napolitano, Obama--sent a letter to Senators McConnell and 
Reid calling for a clean DHS funding bill. That is Chertoff, Ridge, and 
Napolitano, all said--former heads of DHS, two Republicans and one 
Democrat:

       It is imperative that we ensure that DHS is ready, willing, 
     and able to protect the American people. To that end, we urge 
     you not to risk funding for the operations that protect every 
     American and to pass a clean DHS funding bill.

  I think it is preposterous that Republicans can even suggest a lapse 
in DHS

[[Page H1181]]

funding, dealing a blow to men and women in charge with protecting our 
homeland at a time when such vigilance is of the utmost necessity.
  Do we need to bring up the three jihadists in New York City and 
Brooklyn and the continuing threats that the head of the FBI tells us 
exist in every State of the Union and this is a time when we are 
discussing that we are not going to fund the men and women on the front 
line at the Department of Homeland Security protecting our Nation?
  This is no time for political trickery and manufactured crisis. This 
is a time to put America first, the safety of American citizens first, 
and politics and partisanship should be at the bottom rung of any 
consideration, but that is not what we are doing.
  I think it is disrespectful to those who work at DHS, at TSA, at the 
Coast Guard, at the Border Patrol, ICE, and other agencies--a complete 
disregard to American people who trust us to govern responsibly. For 
what? To attack the President.
  Remember what I said this morning. Holding hostage the security of 
our homeland will not force the President of the United States to 
deport every noncitizen in our country. Republicans want to make a 
priority deportation, but that is not going to make our country safer.
  I find it a bit ironic that it seems to me that the basic reason we 
are not going to fund a clean DHS--which we had, we had a clean, agreed 
to by both sides in the House and the Senate, we were ready to go, 
until the Republicans woke up one day, all angry because the President 
went and issued an executive order. They said: We have got to go get 
those immigrants, so let's put at risk the funding of DHS.
  That was in order to stop a program that would allow about 4 million 
parents of American citizen children--4 million parents of American 
citizen children--go through a background check, get right with the law 
and about 1 million DREAMers, that is young people who are in this 
country and came here as children.
  So that is why you are holding it up. Guess what, the only thing that 
is holding it up is the preposterous decision by a Federal judge, which 
you went and handpicked--you went shopping: Let's get a judge that is 
going to agree with us ahead of time, and then let's declare it a 
victory.
  Well, that decision is being appealed. If I were your side of the 
aisle, I would just declare victory and say, Okay, we have a judicial 
process that is going on, it is going to be dealt with in the 
courtroom, and, in the meantime, we are going to protect the American 
people--because, in the end, when this is all said and done, if you 
shut down DHS, you do not stop the processing of the documentation for 
undocumented workers and for DREAMers. You don't stop it.
  Why? Because not a cent of DHS funding comes from here. Do you know 
where it comes from? From the application fee that they pay. So there 
will be money to pay those workers within the context, but you are not 
going to pay a Coast Guard member?
  Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I think what you are saying is if the 
Republicans shut down the Department of Homeland Security, the only 
thing the Department will be able to do is to process the paperwork for 
undocumented immigrants, and they won't be able to fulfill their 
functions keeping our Nation safe.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Absolutely. In other words, we are going to put at 
risk the safety of our Nation while, at the same time, the 5 million 
that they call ``illegal'' are getting legalized because--how is it 
that you finance that? Through their contributions and the money that 
they have to spend in the application fee.
  So you don't reach the purpose. You have put in jeopardy the safety 
of our Nation in order to punish a group of people you can't punish. 
You can't punish them because they are paying for it.
  American citizens, while you are waiting for your visa, while you are 
waiting for your citizenship application, while you are waiting for 
that, guess what, the Republicans have decided you need to wait while 
the 5 million that the President said he wants to legalize continue to 
get processed.
  It is absurd what is going on here. We are putting at jeopardy the 
American people. You don't think the Border Patrol is an essential 
protection to the Nation? I don't know how you can say that on that 
side of the aisle because every other word is: Secure the border, 
secure the border, secure the border.
  But when it comes to securing the border, you say: Let's not fund it. 
We are not going to fund securing the border today. We are simply going 
to let it lapse and say to those Border Patrol agents, Do you know 
what? Why don't you show up and secure the border, but we are not going 
to give you enough money to pay your mortgage, we are not going to give 
you enough money in order to pay your groceries or pay your heating 
bill. We are not going to pay you for securing the border because we 
think we need to punish President Obama and all of those who would 
think that we might need to reprioritize how it is.
  Lastly, I want to say to the gentleman from Colorado, in the end--in 
the end--there are 5 million American citizens--children--who are going 
to remember this day, 5 million American citizen children who are going 
to remember this.
  Do you know how they are going to remember it? They are going to 
remember their moms and their dads who were undocumented--these 
Americans, 5 million of them--and eventually, they are going to reach 
18 years of age, and they are going to vote.
  When they go vote, do you know what they are going to remember with 
their first vote? Who treated their parents so cruelly and so 
miserably.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the point of 
order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I like my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, but saying that we are politicizing some issues is a little bit 
just stretching the issue, it seems to me.
  The question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. 
Res. 125? This has nothing to do with UMRA. CBO estimates that H.R. 5 
contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA. This is a dilatory tactic 
and, I might add, a bit of a political tactic, which is what we are 
accused of.
  As the gentleman from Colorado is aware, we are currently waiting on 
a bill from the Senate. We currently have a rule before us that 
provides for consideration of over 40 amendments, including two from 
the gentleman from Colorado, to an important education bill. There is 
no reason to prevent consideration of this rule while we wait for the 
Senate to do its work.
  In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for 
the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of 
consideration of the resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 167, not voting 41, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 91]

                               YEAS--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Crawford
     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

[[Page H1182]]


     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     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
     Ross
     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
     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)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--167

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     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
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     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
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--41

     Ashford
     Beatty
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Cardenas
     Chaffetz
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Garrett
     Grayson
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hudson
     Hurt (VA)
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Kelly (PA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Maloney, Sean
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Perry
     Peterson
     Roe (TN)
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Sewell (AL)
     Speier
     Walberg
     Waters, Maxine
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. VELA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BURGESS, ROKITA, and NUGENT changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 91 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 91 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 91 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 91 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 91 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall 
vote No. 91, a recorded vote on the question of consideration of H. 
Res. 125--the rule providing for further consideration of H.R. 5--
Student Success Act (unfunded mandates point of order). Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately on February 26, 2015, I 
missed rollcall vote No. 91, On Question of Consideration of the 
Resolution, because I was in a meeting with Administration officials on 
behalf of my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.''
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 2015, I was unable to be 
present for rollcall vote 91, On Question of Consideration of the 
Resolution, H. Res. 125. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.'' I respectfully request that this be noted in today's 
Congressional Record.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 2015--I was 
not present for rollcall vote 91. If I had been present for this vote, 
I would have voted: ``nay.''
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, on February 26th, I missed one recorded 
vote. I would like to indicate how I would have voted had I been 
present. On rollcall No. 91, I would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed 
rollcall vote No. 91 regarding the ``On Question of Consideration of 
the Resolution'' (Providing for further consideration of H.R. 5, the 
Student Success Act, H. Res 125). Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of New York). The gentlewoman 
from North Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 125 provides for a structured 
rule providing for the consideration of a number of amendments to H.R. 
5, the Student Success Act.
  My colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and 
I have been working to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. Our efforts in reauthorization have centered on four 
principles: reducing the Federal footprint in education, empowering 
parents, supporting effective teachers, and restoring local control.
  H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, ensures that local communities have 
the flexibility needed to meet the needs of their students. This 
legislation reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
also known as ESEA, for 5 years while making commonsense changes to 
update the law and address some of the concerns raised following the 
last reauthorization.
  Despite good intentions, there is widespread agreement that the 
current law is no longer effectively serving students. Instead of 
working with Congress to reauthorize ESEA, the Obama administration 
began offering States temporary waivers in 2011 to exempt them from 
onerous requirements in exchange for new Federal mandates from the 
Department of Education. These waivers are a short-term fix to a long-
term problem and leave States and districts with uncertainty about 
whether they will again be subject to the failing law and if the 
administration will change the requirements necessary to receive a 
waiver.
  It is time to give students, parents, teachers, and school districts 
the certainty to make decisions and the flexibility to make the best 
decisions for

[[Page H1183]]

their communities. H.R. 5 is a step in the right direction and will 
provide this certainty and flexibility.
  Since Republicans returned to the majority in the House in 2011, we 
have held 20 hearings on the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. The committee considered five reauthorization 
bills in four markups in the 112th Congress in addition to a markup and 
a favorable reporting of H.R. 5 in 2013 and again this month.
  I am pleased to work with my colleagues on the Rules Committee to 
report rules for floor debate and the consideration of legislation that 
promotes transparency and participation. In this case, I think we will 
have a terrific opportunity to further improve the bill through the 
amendment process. Forty-four amendments are made in order by this 
rule, including over 20 Democratic amendments and nine bipartisan 
amendments. The House will have the opportunity to work its will. I 
urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If Congress doesn't act, the Department of Homeland Security will 
shut down in 2 days. Republicans are playing a very dangerous game with 
our Nation's security. Today, I am giving the House a fourth chance to 
have a straight up or down vote on a clean DHS funding bill.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up H.R. 861, which will fund the Department of Homeland 
Security through the end of fiscal year 2015 without any poison pill 
provisions. We need to put an end to this stalemate and take immediate 
action to keep our country safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Aguilar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. AGUILAR. 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 that it can carry out its 
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 gentlewoman from North Carolina yield for the purpose of 
this unanimous consent request?
  Ms. FOXX. I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina does not 
yield. Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Torres) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. TORRES. 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 that it can carry out its 
mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
yield for the purpose of this unanimous consent request?
  Ms. FOXX. I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina does not 
yield. Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I, too, 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. Does the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
yield for the purpose of this unanimous consent request?
  Ms. FOXX. I do not yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina does not 
yield. Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my earlier statement 
that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. I do not yield 
for any other purpose and will not yield for any other purpose.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 681, 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 gentlewoman 
from North Carolina has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Frankel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. 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 gentlewoman 
from North Carolina has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with barely 24 hours remaining, I yield to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. 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 Americans safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with barely 24 hours left before the 
expiration of funding for the Department of Homeland Security, I yield 
to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for a very important 
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 mission of 
keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al 
Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. AL 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 will keep the Department open so that it can carry 
out its mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the House bring up H.R. 861, a clean Department of 
Homeland Security funding bill that will keep the Department open so 
that it is able to protect the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with barely more than 24 hours remaining 
before

[[Page H1184]]

the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, I yield to my 
colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a very important 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TONKO. 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 that it can carry out its 
mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Castor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. 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. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California (Ms. Judy Chu) 
has a solution to the funding impasse at DHS, and I yield to her for 
the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. 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 
the mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Mrs. Dingell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. DINGELL. 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 Americans safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), who is an appropriator herself, for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring 
up H.R. 861. Let's protect the American people. The clean Department of 
Homeland Security funding bill should be brought before the House so we 
can keep it open and carry out its mission of keeping the American 
people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts 
(Ms. Clark) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. 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 and administering 
disaster relief.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Beatty), who has a solution to the funding impasse at DHS, for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. BEATTY. 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 not only 
its mission, but it can also keep the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with barely more than 24 hours left before 
the closure of the Department of Homeland Security, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request.
  Ms. BONAMICI. 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. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Huffman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up H.R. 861, a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill 
that would keep the Department open so it can carry out its important 
mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Ted Lieu), who has a solution to the funding impasse at the Department 
of Homeland Security, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. 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 critical mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleading and asking unanimous 
consent that the House bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of 
Homeland Security funding bill that, in this climate of terrorism, 
would keep the Department open so that it can carry out its mission of 
keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with just over 24 hours remaining before the 
Department of Homeland Security shuts down, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has a solution to this impasse.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. 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. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Danny K. Davis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. 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. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Davis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. 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 
the mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with just over 24 hours remaining before the 
Department of Homeland Security shuts down, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Clarke) for a unanimous consent request to address 
this funding impasse.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding.
  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.

[[Page H1185]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the territories are also affected by a lapse 
in Homeland Security. Fortunately, Ms. Plaskett is here with a 
solution. I yield to the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Ms. 
Plaskett) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. PLASKETT. 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 
critical mission of keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LEWIS. 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. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, in just over 24 hours the Department of 
Homeland Security will run out of funding. Fortunately, I have a 
colleague who has a solution to this impasse. I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House of Representatives, 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 and carry out its mission--and the number one mission 
of the United States Congress is to protect the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Langevin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  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 that it can carry out its mission of 
keeping the American people safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with barely more than 24 hours remaining 
before the Department of Homeland Security shuts down, my colleague has 
an idea that he would like to propose to address that. I yield to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas) for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. CARDENAS. 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. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, a lot of my colleagues have made unanimous 
consent requests. I, too, would like to make a unanimous consent 
request, and I yield to myself for that purpose.
  I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 861, the clean 
Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would ensure that 
Border Patrol agents, TSA screeners, Coast Guard members, and Secret 
Service agents would continue to be paid for protecting the American 
people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.

                              {time}  1345


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. How many cosponsors does H.R. 861, the Department of 
Homeland Security funding bill, currently have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may consult the records of the 
House for that information.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, upon further parliamentary inquiry, how many 
of H.R. 861's cosponsors are Republican?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may consult the records of the 
House for that information.
  Mr. POLIS. The records of the House that I have indicate that there 
are 192 Members of the House that are cosponsors of funding the 
Department of Homeland Security, and my records further indicate that 
zero are Republican.
  Point of parliamentary inquiry, do your records agree with mine?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not have that information.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Since we are 2 
days away from the Department of Homeland Security shutting down, 
compromising the ability of the Border Patrol, the TSA, and the Coast 
Guard, who does have the authority to call up H.R. 861, the Department 
of Homeland Security funding bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not issue an advisory 
opinion.
  Mr. POLIS. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a number of colleagues try 
to bring it up. I have tried to bring it up. I hope that the Chair will 
advise whoever has the ability to bring it up to bring it up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman yield to himself for 
debate?
  Mr. POLIS. I yield to myself for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  I ask unanimous consent to amend H.R. 125 to include language 
allowing for the House to debate and have an up-or-down vote on H.R. 
861, the Homeland Security funding bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
yield for the purpose of this unanimous consent request?
  Ms. FOXX. I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina does not 
yield. Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, it looks like we are going to talk about education. Now, that 
is a very important topic. I agree with my colleague, Dr. Foxx, and I 
am glad that none of the time that we have been trying to fund the 
Department of Homeland Security has in any way detracted from this 
important debate.
  I think the point that has been made is that here we are, barely more 
than 24 hours from compromising the security of our country. Yes, of 
course, the education debate is critical; but couldn't we take a moment 
to approve one of those unanimous consent requests?
  Probably in the time it took to hold them all, we probably could have 
had a vote on the bill which would have passed and actually prevented a 
shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.
  Again, we are here to talk about the rule under which H.R. 5, the 
bill that reauthorizes ESEA, will be considered under. Now, this effort 
and this bill--and ESEA is very near and dear to my heart and my career 
experience.
  Throughout my career, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity and 
been blessed to have been involved with education policy and on the 
ground in a number of different ways and levels.
  I served as chairman of the Colorado State Board of Education. I 
launched a network of public charter schools for English language 
learners. I cofounded a charter school for homeless youth and youth in 
transitional housing.
  I have sat for several years on the House Education and Workforce 
Committee. My district is home to Colorado's two flagship universities, 
CU Boulder and CSU in Fort Collins. On a more personal level, my son 
C.J. is approaching the age where he is going to begin school this 
fall.
  What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that, throughout my career, 
education has always been my top priority because I have personally 
seen the difference that it can make in people's lives, from early 
childhood education and quality preschool and kindergarten, all the way 
through adult education programs to help make sure

[[Page H1186]]

that adults have the ability to have good jobs in a changing workforce.
  Almost every day, one of my constituents contacts my office about 
education. Just last week, I met with several principals to talk about 
the need for good, professional development in schools.
  Last week, I heard from a parent that is concerned about the culture 
of overtesting in her son's school. Just yesterday, a constituent of 
mine told me about her own upbringing and success in Colorado schools.
  Today, we are considering H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. This bill 
would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education--by the way, 
Mr. Speaker, if you can't handle the gavel, I will be happy to take it 
myself.
  Put more simply, this bill is about the Federal role in education 
policy. Now, there are a lot of problems with No Child Left Behind. I 
think that is something we hear from our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, something that all of us have heard in our constituencies, 
from families, from teachers, from School board members, pent-up 
frustrations at the lack of change in almost 15 years of a policy that 
had several failings that we knew about right away--whether it is the 
flawed and superficial mechanism of AYP, or Adequate Yearly Progress, 
whether it is the frustrating paperwork and bureaucracy that it puts 
sometimes ahead of education.
  This is a very important piece of legislation, and it should be 
treated seriously. Unfortunately, this House hasn't held a single 
hearing on education before moving forward with this bill. The Chamber 
and the committee haven't held any hearings on this important 
legislation. When asked, the chairman, Chairman Kline, said that: Well, 
the committee held hearings before in several other years.

  But this is a different Congress. There are new Members. Our own 
committee has new members who have never gotten to witness a single 
hearing on education before moving through with an incredibly important 
piece of legislation.
  I will be part of this debate in the coming hours if this rule passes 
regarding the amendments around this bill, the content of the bill 
itself. As my north star, what I look for in a successful 
reauthorization of ESEA and replacing No Child Left Behind with the 
Federal education law that makes sense is really threefold.
  Number one, we must get accountability right; number two, we must 
expand and replicate what works in public education; and, number 3, we 
must change what doesn't work in public education.
  Let's talk about getting accountability right. Unfortunately, this 
bill falls short in this regard. It has an enormous loophole that 
threatens to drive underground and remove the accountability for kids 
with disabilities.
  That is why this bill is opposed by a number of groups that represent 
children with disabilities, special education teachers, and all those 
who are concerned about how the 12 or 13 percent of children in our 
schools that receive special education services succeed.
  What mechanism is that loophole? Well, here is what it is. There is a 
number in ESEA, No Child Left Behind, 1 percent. That is a cap on the 
number of kids that are allowed to be given an alternative assessment.
  Now, clearly, there will be some kids that can't have an ordinary 
assessment, some of the most severe-needs special education kids. It 
doesn't even matter that much what that number is, as long as it is 
reasonable, whether it is half a percent or 1\1/2\ percent, whether it 
is three-quarters of a percent or even 2 percent. What is important is 
that it is uniform and it reasonably approaches the kids that are 
unable to take the test.
  What this bill does is it removes that cap altogether. It says States 
can administer alternative assessments that are not included in the 
mainstream accountability program to whomever they want--meaning a 
State that might not be teaching or serving kids with special needs 
could simply say: All kids receiving special education services and IDA 
services, all 12 percent of our district or our State, will take this 
other assessment that will not be incorporated in the mainstream 
accountability.
  That is what the special-needs community fears, and it is a very 
reasonable fear because, look, we are elected officials, Mr. Speaker. I 
think some of our friends and perhaps people who are not our friends 
have become Governors of other States. Former Members of this body have 
become Governors.
  Guess what, Governors aren't too different than people in this body. 
They like to look good. They like to look like they are successful. 
They don't want to create a dataset that shows that they are failing 
kids.
  It is much easier to dumb down the standards and exempt children from 
the testing, and that is the second part of accountability that this 
bill gets wrong. It allows for a dumbing down of the standards.
  One of the great steps that No Child Left Behind and the President 
built upon with his Race to the Top initiative is that States need to 
have college and career-ready standards.
  There is a mechanism in place to make sure that those standards are 
certified by institutions of higher education within a State, meaning 
that if you graduate a high school with a diploma, you ought to have 
the academic skills needed to succeed in college. If not, what does a 
high school diploma even mean?
  Unfortunately, what this bill does is it takes out that backstop of 
college and career-ready standards, as certified by the public 
institutions of higher education in the State, allowing another glaring 
loophole for States to define success downward to make themselves look 
better.
  Now, let's talk about replicating and expanding what works. On that 
account, this bill does somewhat better. Now, I wish it included our 
innovations in education amendment which we offered in committee and, 
again, on the floor that, unfortunately, was not allowed. It is a very 
highly leveraged way to invest in high-promise programs that work.
  It does have some excellent language around replicating and expanding 
successful public charters schools, as well as several amendments that 
would strengthen and build upon that language as well.
  Finally, with regard to what doesn't work in education and changing 
it, this bill also falls short. We need to invest in real change in 
schools that aren't working.
  One thing that this bill guts are the teeth behind the turnaround 
models in turning around our low performing schools. There is no 
guarantee that these investments would be data driven or that they 
would work to ensure that some of our most persistently low performing 
schools would improve and allow children a chance to succeed.
  Now that this bill might be coming to the floor, Members should at 
least have the opportunity to amend and improve the bill.
  Now, in our Rules Committee meeting yesterday, I supported an open 
rule for amendment to H.R. 5. Frankly, there was a lot of bad 
amendments offered to this bill that were blocked. There were also a 
lot of good amendments that were blocked.
  Now, there were 44 amendments that are allowed to be considered under 
this bill, and I am grateful that two of the five amendments that I 
offered will be voted on here today as well, as well as the Democratic 
substitute that our committee ranking member, Mr. Scott, put forward as 
supported by the Democrats on our committee.
  Mr. Scott's substitute ensures that the spirit of the ESEA, as 
Federal civil rights legislation, is maintained and built upon.
  One of the amendments that I will be talking about later would 
encourage charter schools to work closely with public schools to 
collaborate and share best practices, tying into the second principle 
of ESEA reauthorization: expand and replicate what works in public 
education.
  Another one of my amendments would allow States to use funds for the 
creation and distribution of open source textbooks, resulting in 
significant cost savings for the States. It is simply an allowable use 
and can save many districts and charter schools money.
  In addition, I want to highlight another few amendments that were 
very important that will be allowed under this bill.
  Representative Susan Davis' amendment would amend the definition of

[[Page H1187]]

school leader and ensure that principals are receiving the full amount 
of professional development as the funds are available to them.
  Mr. Castro's amendment seeks to improve the college and career 
readiness of homeless youth.
  These are just a few of the amendments from my Democratic colleagues 
that I look forward to supporting today.
  Now, although these amendments were in order, there were also several 
positive suggestions that would have been improvements to the bill but, 
unfortunately, won't be coming to the floor under this rule.
  For instance, an important amendment by Representative Langevin would 
have required States to have college and career-ready standards, 
addressing that glaring loophole in the base Republican bill. 
Unfortunately, that amendment wasn't brought to the floor.
  Another example is a colleague of mine presented an idea which is on 
the tips of many of our tongues--and, frankly, I would have liked to 
have seen defeated on the floor of the House, but it wasn't even 
allowed a vote.
  Representative Salmon offered an amendment that would completely 
eliminate Federal testing. Now, I think it would have been great for 
this Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to defeat that amendment and 
make a powerful statement that we believe in accountability.
  Yes, we believe that where taxpayer money goes, taxpayers deserve 
transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, we won't have the 
opportunity to make that statement.
  A number of other amendments that would have improved the bill or 
would have provided an opportunity for Members of this body to do their 
work have, unfortunately, been prevented under this rule.
  I look forward to discussing the merits of the rule and the merits of 
the bill. I have a number of colleagues who have joined us on the floor 
to join us in this discussion as well, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was going to remark on the fact that our colleague from Colorado 
has given us some levity, but it has been so long since the levity 
occurred, I am not sure anybody would remember it.
  However, I do think it is important to point out that our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle continually tell us how our legislation 
falls short of the ideal that they would like to see.
  I would like to remind our colleagues that, for 2 years, the 
Democrats were in control of the House and the Senate. Two years, they 
had the House and the Senate and the White House.
  If they had been so interested in reauthorizing this legislation and 
lots of other legislation that they criticize us about, they should 
have brought that ideal legislation forward at that time and passed it.

                              {time}  1400

  I would also like to point out, despite what our colleague says about 
no hearings on this bill, that since we returned to the majority in the 
House in 2011, we have held 20 hearings on the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The committee considered five 
reauthorization bills in four markups in the 112th Congress, in 
addition to a markup and the favorably reporting of H.R. 5 in 2013 and 
again this month.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree that every child deserves the absolute best 
education, but that is really not what is at issue for those who oppose 
the Student Success Act. What is at issue is how that should be 
accomplished: Is the Federal Government better at ensuring that our 
children receive the proper education or do we do a better job at the 
local level?
  I will tell you my experience with education. My father served on the 
Board of Education and then served in the administration of one of the 
fastest growing school districts in my district. My mother was also a 
schoolteacher. So I learned a lot about what works in education at the 
kitchen table every night.
  Now, I can tell you this. As far as my experience is concerned, the 
Federal Government does not know what is best for our schools. In fact, 
I was in our district last week, and what I learned is that the 
compliance requirements required by the Federal Government for our 
teachers is actually not allowing our teachers the time to teach what 
these young people need to learn.
  What we need in our school systems is innovation. That is not driven 
at the Federal level.
  When I was in my district last week, I visited three elementary 
schools and a couple of high schools. What I learned was, at the local 
level, real innovation. We saw students that were excited, that wanted 
to be at school. I would like to tell you about another school. And 
these schools were in the most impoverished areas of our district.
  One is a school there in my district that folks attend because they 
are told in the public school that they won't make it, that they don't 
have what it takes to make it in the public school. Let me tell you how 
innovative this school is, and it does not receive one Federal dollar. 
The graduates of this school and middle school are recruited to some of 
the best magnet, charter, and private schools in our area when they 
finish.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. ALLEN. Thank you.
  Like I said, this school produces through innovation and teaching 
techniques. It changes the cycle.
  What would happen to these children in the public school system under 
the guidance of the Federal Government for the last 50 years? Aren't 
they worth saving?
  Parents, teachers, and local education leaders need control over 
education, not the Federal Government. They are best suited to nurture 
student success in our schools. H.R. 5 does just that. It restores 
local control.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, in the Central Texas one-room schoolhouse 
where he had studied, President Lyndon B. Johnson first signed this 
Federal aid to education act into law. Through its first title, this 
law addresses inequality in educational opportunity. Title I has played 
a vital role in helping schools so that economically disadvantaged 
students can work their way into the middle class.
  Today, the same reactionary forces that first opposed President 
Johnson want to undermine this important civil rights law. Today's bill 
is supported by the same ideologues who have opposed the very concept 
of any Federal aid to education, who in the past disparaged on this 
floor public schools as being ``government schools,'' and who have even 
tried to abolish the Department of Education.
  Well, this Student Success Act is really a ``Student Regress Act'' or 
a ``How Little Can We Do in Washington Act.''
  For San Antonio ISD, for Austin, and for so many other schools, this 
bill means less Federal support at a time when our schools are asked to 
do even more.
  In States like Texas, where school inequality is severe, the State 
leadership has demonstrated time and time again that Federal education 
block grants only lead to blockheaded decisions. ``Block grant'' is an 
apt term because it is designed to block access to achieve educational 
excellence in our public schools.
  Without a firm requirement in Federal law that the States cannot use 
the Federal dollars to just supplant the deficient funding levels they 
have, a State like Texas can and has simply used Federal education 
dollars to fill its budget gaps, with irresponsible officials, like 
Rick Perry, using the money for corporate tax breaks instead of helping 
our schoolchildren.
  So today we look at this bill and we see that, despite extensive 
research on brain development, on the importance of early, quality 
education for our youngest Americans, despite bipartisan support across 
the country, despite the incredible return that it offers on every 
dollar of public investment, early

[[Page H1188]]

childhood education is nowhere to be found. It is missing in action in 
this bill.
  This bill threatens protections for special education. It fails to 
address the unique challenges of at-risk students. It ignores the needs 
of students who need to learn English. It ends the requirement of 
professional development support that encourages innovative teaching.
  It is why I say that a grade of F is entirely too high for this piece 
of legislation. I think a grade of X, Y, or Z might be more 
appropriate. Reject it until we have a Congress committed to a 
meaningful Federal role in advancing individual opportunity and 
ensuring a globally competitive workforce.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last five decades, the Federal Government's 
role in elementary and secondary education has increased dramatically. 
The Department of Education currently runs more than 80--more than 80--
K-12 education programs, many of which are duplicative or ineffective.
  As a school board member, I saw that the vast reporting requirements 
for these Federal programs tie the hands of State and local school 
leaders to make the best education available to their students. Since 
1965, Federal education funding has tripled, yet student achievement 
remains flat. More money clearly is not going to solve the challenges 
we face in education.
  Unfortunately, the Obama administration has refused to work with 
Congress to address these challenges and has, instead, taken 
unprecedented action to further expand its authority over America's 
schools.
  Through the President's waivers scheme and pet programs, such as Race 
to the Top, the Secretary of Education has granted himself complete 
discretion to use taxpayer dollars to coerce States into enacting the 
President's preferred education reforms. Adding insult to injury, 
President Obama continues to push for more Federal education spending, 
requesting a staggering $70.7 billion in discretionary funding alone 
for the Department of Education in his fiscal year 2016 budget.
  Our children deserve better. It is time to acknowledge more taxpayer 
dollars and more Federal intrusion cannot address the challenges facing 
schools.
  H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, will streamline the Nation's 
education system by eliminating more than 65 duplicative and 
ineffective Federal education programs, cutting through the 
bureaucratic red tape that is stifling education in the classroom, and 
granting States and school districts the authority to use Federal 
education funds to meet the unique needs of their students.
  The bill also requires the Secretary of Education to identify the 
bureaucrats in Washington who run the programs which will be eliminated 
in H.R. 5 and to eliminate their positions, ensuring that the 
bureaucracy shrinks with the programs.
  Additionally, this legislation will take definitive steps to limit 
the Secretary's authority by prohibiting him or her from coercing 
States into adopting academic standards like the Common Core. It also 
halts the executive overreach in the waiver process by prohibiting the 
Secretary from imposing extraneous conditions on States and local 
districts in exchange for a waiver.
  The Student Success Act protects State and local autonomy over 
decisions in the classroom by removing the Secretary's authority to add 
new requirements to Federal programs. H.R. 5 recognizes that local 
communities know their needs better than any bureaucrat in Washington 
and empowers States and districts to develop accountability and school 
improvement systems that align with their local priorities. It also 
repeals Federal funding requirements that arbitrarily restrict State 
and local policymakers' ability to set their own budget priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal policies should not tie the hands of local 
educators to make the best decisions for their students and 
communities. H.R. 5 is a step in that direction, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the underlying bill eliminates the 21st 
Century Community Learning Centers that are so critical to providing an 
outlet, a positive outlet, to young people in communities across this 
country for all that youthful energy that kids carry around with them. 
Afterschool programs make a difference. They especially make a 
difference in the lives of young people who live in communities, like 
many that I represent, that are facing enormous financial pressures 
just meeting the requirements of providing daily instruction and can't 
support, without additional help, the kind of afterschool experiences 
that this program has supported. Why fix what is not broken? These 
programs really work.
  I know something about this. I come from Flint, Michigan. In fact, I 
served on the board of education in my hometown in Flint. I was elected 
38 years ago. I was 18 years old.
  Flint is an important community in discovering the value of 
afterschool programming because long ago, many decades ago, auto 
pioneer Charles Stewart Mott and a visionary by the name of Frank 
Manley developed a community education concept which opened the doors 
to schools and provided enrichment activities so that young people 
could have those positive choices.
  What do we say to these kids when we tell them stay on the straight 
and narrow, stay in school, when those few hours after the schoolday 
they are at risk and are given opportunities every day to make bad 
choices for themselves, to go down a negative path? What afterschool 
programming has done is it has given these young folks a chance to 
explore their creative side. It works. It makes a difference, not just 
in keeping them out of trouble, but what we have seen is that 
afterschool programming actually improves academic performance. The 
ability to engage in arts and music and physical activity improves 
their schoolday performance.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. It ought to 
include this provision.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while current Federal policy started with good 
intentions, burdensome and prescriptive regulations have created 
confusion for school districts and limited school participation and 
tutoring services and public school choice. Parents know their children 
best, and any efforts to provide a high-quality education must include 
engaged parents. Parental involvement can help drive innovation, 
competition, and school improvement.
  The Student Success Act builds on the importance of parental 
involvement by ensuring that parents have access to meaningful 
information about local school quality, and it empowers local 
communities to hold students accountable.

                              {time}  1415

  It also maintains longstanding parental notification and consent 
provisions in current law.
  H.R. 5 continues the charter school, magnet school, and tutoring 
programs to provide parents with more choices in educating their 
children. Along with parental involvement, encouraging and supporting 
effective teachers in the classroom is critical to student success and 
high quality education. Mr. Speaker, many Americans can regale you with 
stories of their favorite teachers who made a lasting impact on their 
lives.
  Federal policies should not hinder innovation in the classroom. That 
is why the underlying bill repeals Federal ``highly qualified 
teachers'' requirements which restrict State and local school 
districts' ability to reward and maintain good teachers by rewarding 
education level over effective teaching.
  H.R. 5 also supports the development and implementation of teacher 
evaluation systems that are designed by States and school districts 
with input from parents, teachers, school leaders, and other 
stakeholders. In addition to evaluation systems, the Student Success 
Act reduces confusion and duplication by consolidating teacher quality 
programs into a single flexible grant program to be used by States and

[[Page H1189]]

school districts to support creative approaches to recruit and retain 
effective educators.
  The recurring theme throughout this legislation is empowering the 
people closest to students to make decisions for their communities and 
ensuring that the law is flexible to meet the needs of diverse States, 
regions, and student populations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Colorado for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. 
I think it is a damaging reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.
  Why are we here? What is the role of the Congress? It is to protect 
America and to ensure America's future. The best way to ensure 
America's future is to educate our children. In 1965, when the ESEA was 
originally developed, the exact declaration of that policy stated that 
it was ``in recognition of the special education needs of children of 
low-income families.''
  I know a lot about that. I know because I am a Head Start child, a 
public school kid who went under ESEA. I know that when America makes 
the right policies to educate its people, we thrive. I know that people 
can come to America without an education and because of our public 
school system can believe that their children can grow up to be 
successful in America. I know that because my parents came without much 
education and without any money. Oh, by the way, they are the only 
parents in the history of these United States to send two daughters to 
this House of Representatives. Let's do the right thing.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Colorado for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule and H.R. 5. One of the 
hallmarks of America is our system of free, local, public schools. 
America is the envy of the world because a quality K-12 education is 
key to opportunity and a pathway to success. To build on that 
fundamental premise, 50 years ago, the Congress adopted the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act to ensure that all children, no matter 
their background, family income, their race or religion, could have 
equal access to a high quality public education.
  This Republican bill, unfortunately, strikes at the heart of this 
fundamental American principle, and it tips the scales in favor of the 
well-to-do to the detriment of millions of other students.
  While the bill grants important flexibility to States in some areas, 
Republicans let States off the hook for maintaining their commitment to 
students in schools that oftentimes do not have the extras. The 
Republican bill takes away millions of dollars from students in schools 
in my home school districts of Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties in 
Florida.
  Overall, Republicans in Congress propose to cut Florida schools by 
$33 million in fiscal year 2016 and by a whopping $437 million through 
fiscal year 2021. In doing so, they cut at the heart of our ability to 
give teachers the tools they need to teach and our students the ability 
to learn.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, many amendments will be debated, and some could 
improve the bill while others will not. But in the end, other than the 
Democratic substitute, there is no way to fix this Republican bill that 
would harm so many students and schools across America. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' and send the committee back to the drawing 
board.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and the 
underlying bill. I was one of I think 45 Members who voted against the 
No Child Left Behind law when it originally came up in the House of 
Representatives several years ago. This turned out to be one of the 
most popular votes I ever cast with public school teachers. I have 
heard from many of them throughout these years that that bill has been 
in effect. It was a bill written primarily by Senator Kennedy and 
Congressman Miller, and it was a very far-to-the-left type of bill. So 
I am especially pleased that this H.R. 5 today is a major rewriting of 
that bill.
  I especially support the very strong alternative certification 
provisions in the bill. It has never made any sense to me to say that a 
person with a Ph.D. and long experience in a field cannot teach and 
some young person with a degree in education would have to be hired. A 
Ph.D. in chemistry who worked 30 years at Oak Ridge in our scientific 
lab couldn't be hired to teach, and some person who had had a few hours 
of chemistry, some 22-year-old with a bachelor's degree, would have to 
be hired.
  Our boards of education should have the flexibility to hire people 
who have a great education or long experience in a particular field in 
those types of situations. I wish that the provisions were even 
stronger than they are now.
  Mr. Speaker, many years ago, I taught at T.C. Williams High School in 
Alexandria. I taught American government and journalism. I very 
reluctantly gave up that teaching job so that I could finish law school 
sooner. I can tell you that my grandmother taught school in Tennessee 
for over 40 years, and my older sister taught for over 33 years. I have 
spoken over 1,000 times to schools and school groups, and I can tell 
you also that the teachers and principals of east Tennessee have enough 
sense and intelligence to run their own schools. They don't need 
bureaucrats from Washington dictating every move that they make almost, 
and we need much more local control. This bill does that.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado and 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina for their leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I think you can look at me and understand the importance 
of the Federal Government, for when I went to school, those of us of 
minority status, African Americans and Hispanics, were not protected by 
our States. It had to be those in the Federal Government who indicated 
that no matter what you looked like, what your race was, or what your 
disability was, you had the right to equal education. That is what the 
Federal Government can do. That is what this involvement of the Federal 
Government is. It is to ensure that no child is denied an education.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves today with a decrease in funding 
to education across America. Parents should understand that, with a 3.2 
million student enrollment increase, this bill flatlines any increase 
in education. It does not support teachers, and it does not support 
highly qualified teachers in providing for them an incentive to teach.
  More importantly, my fellow students who may be called disabled, do 
you know what they do to them? They raise the numbers of those who can 
be sent to those classes that in the old days we called slow classes, 
so that they are not mainstreamed, they are just thrown over to the 
side. We stopped doing that decades ago, but this bill brings it right 
back home again.
  What the Federal Government does is it raises standards to allow 
States not to weaken standards, not to weaken the assessment process, 
and not to institute weak accountability systems. But that is what this 
bill does now. So my student who needs an opportunity does not have the 
support, and poor children, money is taken from poor children and 
recklessly used for something else.
  Why, Mr. Speaker, can't we make this a bipartisan bill and do what 
was done for me by the Federal Government? It gave me the opportunity 
to stand on the floor of the House today as an African American. With a 
history of segregation in America, the Federal Government said that I 
needed an equal education.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1190]]

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, our current education system 
must be fixed. However, H.R. 5 is not the solution.
  As chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I cannot 
support H.R. 5. This bill hurts the very children that ESEA intended to 
protect: children of color, children of poverty, and children with 
disabilities. H.R. 5 fails to hold States and schools accountable and 
to make students college- and career-ready. Almost 5 million English 
language learners will suffer with limited funds and block grants. 
Wraparound services that are so critical for a well-rounded education 
are eliminated. H.R. 5 hurts our students and makes America less 
competitive.
  By contrast, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute ensures that 
high-poverty schools and high-needs students get the resources and the 
support that they need. I urge you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5 and ``yes'' 
on the substitute.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Colorado 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and against 
H.R. 5. Everyone who knows me knows that I believe that if you spend 5 
minutes--only 5 minutes--with a young person, you can change a life and 
shift the course of history. Many years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr., and Rosa Parks saw a little light, a little hope in me, ``the boy 
from Troy,'' a young student from rural Alabama. They gave me hope and 
opened doors.
  Their actions taught me how important it is to tear down barriers and 
invest in the potential of each and every American child.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the responsibility to learn from our experiences 
and provide a quality foundation for the next generation. But this bill 
turns back the clock on progress. H.R. 5 puts the hardest-hit--those 
most in need--on the chopping block. We don't want to go back. We want 
to go forward. It cuts funding, pushes down standards, and rolls back 
the protections for our future--our youth--our precious children.
  I urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Let us 
come together and do what is right and what is just to help students 
realize the American Dream. That is the thing to do, and we must do it.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I get back to education, I want to point out that there is a 
very unusual component to this rule. There is something called self-
executing language, which means that the rule is effectively like a 
bill, and the language is around a very hot button divisive topic--
namely, abortion.
  There is actually a provision in this rule that effectively becomes a 
passed bill--it is self-executing--that would defund school-based 
health centers if they have any information about referrals or 
directions or any abortion-related materials.
  In fact, the language is so vague, they wouldn't even be able to 
display, under this, antiabortion-related materials. It says:

       The center will not provide abortion-related materials, 
     referrals, or directions for abortion services to any such 
     student.

  It would essentially prevent a school from providing information to a 
child about alternatives to abortion, like adoption or other options 
that a young parent might have, to be able to stay in school.
  If this rule passes with this self-executing amendment, I believe 
that the number of abortions will increase in the country as a result. 
This is an anti-choice, pro-abortion measure that has been inserted 
into this rule, and it is very restrictive on our school districts.
  It is a very unusual procedural tactic. I have never seen, in my 6 
years here, a rule used for self-executing language around a divisive 
topic like abortion.
  No debate on the amendment--even these other amendments on education 
under this bill, they have 10 minutes of debate, and they have 20 
minutes of debate. This is a secret attempt to get language into a bill 
that we were not even shown, I think, 3 minutes before we voted on it 
in the Rules Committee yesterday--just another example of the problems 
with this ad hoc lawmaking process without the right thought going into 
bills.
  I don't even think that the sponsor of this, who is Representative 
Neugebauer, meant to exclude information about alternatives to abortion 
or other options that people might choose; but, unfortunately, the 
language of the self-executed amendment would prohibit that as well.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of engaging in these partisan fights, I wish 
that at least one of our unanimous consent requests had been granted to 
fund the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, that wasn't 
the case. We are instead discussing a very divisive bill.
  Some of my colleagues talked about funding. I want to elaborate a 
little more about what this so-called portability was. Portability 
sounds great. Of course, funds should follow the student.
  The net effect of this version of portability that is in this bill is 
that resources are transferred out of schools that serve a lot of at-
risk and poor children to schools that serve a lower percentage of poor 
or at-risk children.
  What this means in districts like mine or districts across the 
country is, on the ground, schools that serve 60, 70, 80 percent low-
income families will lose two staff people, three staff people--in some 
cases, maybe even four staff people. They will lose teachers. They will 
lose paraprofessionals. They will be taken out of their budget, and 
they would be added to the budget of some of the wealthier schools in 
the district.
  Now, look, if we all want to add staff to all schools, I mean, my 
goodness, if we can find funding to add staff to some of the wealthier 
schools--I know that there are many schools that have a lower 
socioeconomic risk in my district--parents would love more staff, but 
the right answer is not to take those staff out of the schools that 
serve the most at-risk kids.
  That is what this bill does, which is why no Democrats on our 
committee supported it. It is a step in the opposite direction. 
Honestly, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to even get to the discussion of 
getting accountability right--expanding and replicating what works and 
changing what doesn't work and encouraging innovation--when the basic 
funding parameters of the bill do the opposite of what we need to do: 
take money out of the schools that serve the most at-risk kids which, 
under whatever accountability system we use, are likely the schools 
that need more investment.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule with the self-executing 
abortion language, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleague has raised the provision in the manager's amendment 
related to school-based health centers referring children in schools 
for abortions. Regardless of their position on abortion, most Americans 
agree that the issue should not be raised at school. The language now 
in the bill reflects that consensus and would have no impact on 
adoptions.
  Mr. Speaker, my background as an educator, school board member, 
mother, and grandmother reinforces my belief that students are best 
served when people at the local level are in control of education 
decisions. I also believe that education is the most important tool 
Americans at any age can have.
  I was the first person in my family to graduate from high school and 
went to college where I worked full time and attended school part time. 
It took me 7 years to earn my bachelor's degree, and I continued to 
work my way through my master's and doctoral degrees.
  From my own experience, I am convinced this is the greatest country 
in the world for many reasons, not the least of which is that a person 
like me, who grew up extremely poor in a house with no electricity and 
no running water, with parents with very little formal education and no 
prestige at all, could work hard and be elected to the

[[Page H1191]]

United States House of Representatives.
  No legislation is perfect, and that is why I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to address their concerns and improve the Student 
Success Act throughout the amendment process.
  We have a significant number of amendments to consider. Forty-four 
amendments are made in order by this rule, including over 20 Democrat 
amendments. Among those is Ranking Member Scott's substitute amendment 
for this legislation and nine bipartisan amendments.
  I have never been one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, 
and H.R. 5 is a step in the right direction of reducing the Federal 
role in education; empowering parents, teachers, and local school 
districts; and increasing local control.
  That is why I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 125 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     861) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and 
     for other purposes. 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. 3. 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.

  Ms. FOXX. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered, 
and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 177, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 92]

                               YEAS--234

     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
     Byrne
     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
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     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)
     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
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     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

                               NAYS--177

     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

[[Page H1192]]


     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     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)
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     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
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     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
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Costa
     Dold
     Duncan (SC)
     Flores
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Keating
     King (NY)
     Langevin
     Lee
     Long
     McNerney
     Pompeo
     Rice (NY)
     Roe (TN)
     Roskam
     Rush
     Schock
     Speier
     Waters, Maxine
     Zinke

                              {time}  1502

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 92, I was unavoidably detained 
in a meeting with constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 92 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I missed recorded vote No. 92 due to a 
hearing of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and 
Intelligence. I would have voted ``no'' (Motion on Ordering the 
Previous Question on the Rule providing for further consideration of 
H.R. 5, the Student Success Act). Had this motion failed, House 
Democrats would have had the opportunity to offer an amendment making 
H.R. 861 in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 184, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 93]

                               AYES--234

     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
     Byrne
     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
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     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
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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

                               NOES--184

     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
     Dold
     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
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     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
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Duncan (SC)
     Flores
     Hinojosa
     Lee
     Long
     McNerney
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Roskam
     Speier
     Waters, Maxine
     Zinke


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1510

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 93, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________