[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opponent, may be withdrawn by its proponent at any time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.''
____________________