[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4686-4694]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 471, SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY 
                            AND RESULTS ACT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 186 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 186

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     471) to reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; 
     (2) the further amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by Delegate Norton of the District of Columbia or her 
     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Utah is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and 
extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results 
Act, sometimes called the SOAR Act, with 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
  Further, this proposed rule will make in order all of the amendments 
filed at the Rules Committee for H.R. 471. Admittedly, it was only one 
amendment, but it is made in order, and it is offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). This is an 
amendment that was presented in the committee and defeated on a 12-21 
vote, but which will be reoffered here today as a substitute measure. 
In short, this rule is about as fair as they potentially get.
  Madam Speaker, this is a very open, straightforward rule that we will 
be considering today, and I am pleased to stand before the House in 
support of this rule as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 471. I 
commend the sponsor of this legislation, the distinguished Speaker of 
the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who has previously 
served as chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, and he 
understands education issues very, very well.
  Madam Speaker, when the Cubs in the 1960s hired Leo Durocher to be 
their manager, he was hired 2 years after they finished the season 49 
games out of first place. In his short period of time there, he would 
take them to the top, in which case, in 1969, a year that still hurts, 
the Cubs were atop the National League for 155 days. Unfortunately, 7 
of those days they were not on top included the last day of the season.

                              {time}  1230

  But Durocher always said for his team that ``I make a great effort to 
argue for the issues, but there are two things that are working against 
me: the umpires and the rules.''
  There will be a lot of people--some people--who will speak against 
this motion, perhaps even this rule, and there are two things against 
them: One is the unique constitutional relationship between Congress 
and the District of Columbia that is not there, vis-a-vis the States; 
and, number two, the underprivileged kids who benefit from this 
underlying bill.
  If I were to predict a preview of what will be taking place in the 
debate, not only on the rule but also on the bill itself, I would 
predict four themes will be appearing time after time after time.
  One will be the concept of the constitutional mandate that is here. 
When this Republic was established, the Constitution gave unique 
jurisdictional responsibility to Congress over the District of 
Columbia. That is not going to be a violation of their home rule 
concept, but it is a responsibility of Congress. And there is great 
precedent for this particular kind of provision.
  In 1996, it is Congress that insisted upon a charter school program 
in the District of Columbia. You will hear from both sides of the aisle 
recognition of the great value that that program has, and justifiably 
so. There is a waiting list in the District of Columbia for those 
charter schools. This underlying bill increases the percentage of 
funding going to charter schools in the District.
  In 2003, an Opportunity Scholarship was instituted, at the insistence 
of Congress. Again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the 
opportunity; disadvantaged kids who wanted the opportunity that this 
scholarship afforded them. In the appropriation bill for 2010, 
unfortunately, Congress intervened again in a negative way and cut out 
this Opportunity Scholarship program. There were a lot of upset 
students and parents who couldn't believe how special interest politics 
got in the way of their son's or daughter's dreams and was snatched 
from their very hands. Their opportunity to make what they believe were 
better educational choices was basically taken away from them.
  H.R. 471 remedies this inequity. There were 216 kids at the time 
scheduled to enter the program who were not allowed because of the 
action of that particular appropriation bill. Those 216 kids, by this 
particular legislation, will be given priority in once again being able 
to apply for this Opportunity Scholarship.
  A second discussion point that will be coming up repeatedly deals 
with the efficacy of these programs. There will be conflicting data 
that will be thrown from both sides as to the effectiveness. But I 
think the one piece of information that can be clearly stated is that 
91 percent of the kids enrolled in this Opportunity Scholarship 
complete their coursework. That is 21 percent higher than a control 
group of kids who were interested but were not allowed the opportunity 
to complete this particular program. That completion rate is almost 32 
percent higher than the regular completion rate of kids in the public 
education system in Washington, D.C.
  To quote Dr. Patrick Wolf, who was the lead investigator of the 
evaluation mandated by Congress of this program, he concluded by 
stating: ``The research evidence and the testimonials of parents 
confirm that the District of Columbia is a better place because of the 
Opportunity Scholarship program.''
  The third issue that you will be hearing deals with the support of 
this particular program. There will be dueling

[[Page 4687]]

statistics that will be coming at you during the course of the debate. 
Those in favor of the bill will give lists of groups who are in favor 
of this particular program. Those against the bill will give lists of 
groups and unions who are opposed to it. Each side will give a list of 
political leaders both within Washington, D.C., and outside who are in 
favor; and those opposed will give lists of political leaders who do 
not support this program.
  There will be poll results that will be given from both sides, the 
most recent of which will be given by advocates, a Lester & Associates 
poll, which simply says 74 percent of the D.C. residents polled 
supported this program and wanted it restored and made available to all 
D.C. students for all their abilities to participate. You will hear 
polling data to the contrary. You will hear anecdotal stories to the 
contrary.
  Perhaps the most telling, though, issue of support deals with parents 
and the kids in Washington, D.C., who lined up for this program; who 
went on waiting lists for the opportunity to become involved in this 
program; who cried and pled with Congresses past when this program was 
eliminated. They clearly do not want this program to totally be 
destroyed because it takes away from them their chance, their option, 
their opportunity to individualize and upgrade their educational 
opportunities.
  This program probably has a philosophical basis, a kinship, if you 
would, with the Pell Grant, the GI Bill of Rights, in which, once 
again, government tried to empower with choices with few strings 
attached individual adult students or parents so they could choose 
their own personal education future. That's what this bill still tries 
to do.
  The final concept that will probably be presented during debate on 
the rule as well as the bill deals with the concept of liberty. We have 
a Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. The Revolutionary War was 
supposedly fought for the purpose of preserving personal liberty.
  I have to admit, though, as I was teaching school that it was 
difficult for my kids there to really comprehend what liberty meant. It 
was an abstract noun, to say the least. The Founders clearly understood 
what that concept meant as they looked upon a government that was far, 
far away from them. And in the Declaration of Independence we're 
willing to write that the government far away has erected a multitude 
of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people 
and eke out their stance. Indeed, they had waged war against them. 
Those of us who live in the West today have the Department of the 
Interior to remind us of those same circumstances.
  But the kids, mainly in urban and rural settings and suburban 
settings, still have a problem understanding what it means really to 
have liberty until you try and talk about liberty in terms of choices. 
Options, opportunity, without the heavy hand of a government official 
defining what those options and opportunities may or may not be.
  The entrepreneurial world gets it. They realize if they want a market 
share, they have to give people choices in their lives. So if I want a 
mobile phone, there are all sorts of plans from which I may choose. 
Even in the smallest corner market in Washington there are still a 
whole row of breakfast cereals from which I may choose. I may want 
Pringles potato chips, but they still give me 16 varieties. If indeed 
Omaha Steaks sends me an invitation every week to try and come up with 
one of their products, I will choose this week to order one that fits 
for me.
  Only in Washington in this government do you still have people that 
truly believe in a one-size-fits-all approach and that mandates can 
actually be worked, that believe and go back to the concepts of Henry 
Ford when the automobile was so unique he could with a straight face 
look at a consumer and say, You can have a car in any color you want as 
long as it is black.
  Unfortunately, many of the ideas and philosophies still in government 
today, indeed some of the programs still in government today, were born 
in that era in which the idea of an elite sitting in some darkened 
office would decide what I wanted and what was indeed best for me. 
That's liberty.
  The icons who face us in this Chamber, all of them were related in 
some way of moving the concept of law forward, which led to the concept 
of liberty. This bill is based on that concept of choice, opportunity, 
and options for people. It deserves our support because it is an 
opportunity. Call it an education app for Americans living in the 
District of Columbia. The most needy and deserving can actually have 
their choice of how they want their education to take place and it is 
done under the sphere of responsibility given to Congress by the 
Constitution.
  This bill is worthy of our heritage. It is a symbol of our legacy. 
One can only assume that the Founders, indeed the icons that are 
looking down from the perch above us, are smiling now, saying, Congress 
doesn't always do it correctly, but this time with this bill they got 
it right.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to 
rise in strong opposition to H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity 
and Results Act, also known as the SOAR Act. I also am very pleased 
that my friend from Utah has, in the tradition of this committee, 
granted the time to our side. This legislation revives the District of 
Columbia's school voucher program, a program that was allowed to expire 
after 5 years of failing to improve student achievement.
  My colleague said that there will be statistics on both sides. 
Doubtless that is true. I also have great respect that the presenter of 
the rule today is a school teacher. At least if somebody is going to 
meddle in somebody else's business, they ought to at least know a 
little bit about what they're talking about. Too many times in our 
States, too many times in this place, many of us who are not educators, 
nor have we been involved, are making decisions about the education of 
children when we should be being a lot more careful.

                              {time}  1240

  For example, I'm sure that my colleague, who knows his State well, as 
I know mine and as we know ours--all of us in this institution--is 
mindful that in the last 41 years voters have rejected private school 
vouchers every time they have been proposed--interestingly enough, two 
times in Utah, I would urge my good friend. As late as 2007, Utah voted 
62 percent to 38 percent not to have vouchers. Before that, it was sort 
of like the District of Columbia. Incidentally, in 1981, 89 percent of 
the people in a referendum in the District of Columbia voted against 
vouchers--but in 1988, in Utah, 67 percent. It didn't change very much 
from that time to 2007, which isn't very much time from now.
  So how dare we come here to tell these people that we are going to 
thrust upon them something they don't want without a single bit of 
consultation with a single member of the public officials in this 
community being consulted. I might ask why we are here debating such a 
misguided, narrowly focused measure when violence is raging in the 
Middle East, when earthquakes and tsunamis have ravaged Japan, and when 
our own Nation's economy is kind of sputtering along. I suppose, when 
it is one of the leadership of the Republican Party's pet issues, the 
people's work can always be put on hold. This matter is nothing more 
than a shallow attempt to, once again, appease the right-wing of the 
Republican Party.
  Well, Madam Speaker, Congress' oversight of the District is not an 
excuse for political pandering to the Republicans' special interest of 
the day du jour. My colleague used Leo Durocher. He played with and 
against Yogi Berra. Yogi Berra reminds me, if I were to use an analogy, 
that this is deja vu all over again.
  He and Leo would be proud that we are talking about them, Mr. Bishop.
  Whether it is gun rights, a woman's right to choose or education 
policy, the District is not and should not be the dumping grounds for 
Republicans' ideological whims. My colleagues have already stripped the 
District of its limited vote in Congress. The least they

[[Page 4688]]

could do is allow them to control their education system just as every 
other jurisdiction in this country is able to do.
  The people of the District of Columbia did not ask for or want this 
program, nor were they or their elected officials consulted, as I have 
pointed out. If they had been, I'm sure the committee would have been 
told what many of us already know: that this program is simply a waste 
of money. According to legislatively mandated evaluations, the D.C. 
voucher program failed to show any statistically significant impact on 
student achievement. This is in contrast to reading and math scores 
across the District, which did improve over the same period. Though my 
colleagues claim that this program serves students who would otherwise 
be stuck in failing schools without the resources to adequately meet 
their needs, only about a quarter of the students using vouchers came 
from schools in need of improvement.
  Additionally, the Department of Education found that students 
participating in the D.C. voucher program were significantly less 
likely to attend a school with ESL programs, learning support and 
special needs programs, tutors, and counselors.
  Further, private schools are not required to hold the same level of 
transparency or accountability as public schools. Rather than directing 
these funds toward improving all of the District's public and charter 
schools, as Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has proposed, this program 
only serves 1.3 percent of the 70,000 students enrolled in the D.C. 
public schools.
  Though my colleagues may claim to have a newfound commitment to 
education--my friend from the Rules Committee being an exception--
albeit for only a few select students they have found this commitment. 
Let's not forget that, just a few weeks ago, some in this body and most 
in the Republican Party were content to cut--and my friend just used 
the kinship of Pell Grants with this proposal--Federal funding for 9.4 
million students, to eliminate over 200,000 Head Start placements, to 
do away with supplementary education services for 957,000 
underprivileged students, and to reduce or get rid of, they said, 
after-school programs for 139,000 students across this Nation.
  I was just with the CEO of the Urban League's Broward and Palm Beach 
Counties--my constituency--and they were talking about how drastic this 
is going to affect the constituency in that area of underprivileged 
students and who they are seeing and what the juvenile justice system 
is now reaping from this ill harvest that we have thrust upon these 
people.
  On the one hand, the Republicans go on about the need for fiscal 
discipline. They refuse to negotiate on legislation to keep the 
government operating, and they propose billions of dollars in cuts to 
our Nation's students. Yet they are perfectly willing to throw millions 
of dollars at a program that has proven year after year to be 
unpopular, inefficient, and downright ineffective.
  If my colleagues truly wanted to improve the District's schools, 
along with the schools across the Nation, they would be bringing forth 
a serious measure to reform the No Child Left Behind provision. But no. 
Instead, we are debating a measure that has no hope of becoming law. It 
is simply to appease the political whims of a few in the Republican 
Party. The American people, in my view, are tired of the majority's 
using this institution to do nothing but spew ideological rhetoric.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to 
offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the 
House adopts this rule it will bring up H.R. 639, the Currency Reform 
for Fair Trade Act, and I am mindful that there will be speakers 
regarding the same. The amendment will provide our government the tools 
to rein in unfair currency policies by the Chinese.
  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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am going to at this time reserve any 
further comments that I have after the following statement:
  It has been 13 weeks and still no jobs bill and no substantive plan 
to improve our Nation's economy. When my friends in the majority are 
ready to get down to the serious business of improving the lives of all 
American people, we will be waiting.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being here, and I also 
appreciate being here with my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
who is one of the true delights with whom I have such an opportunity to 
work here in Washington.
  I guess, if he is saying that we have the group du jour from whom we 
are presenting bills, today's group du jour would be those who are 
financially disadvantaged and still want a better opportunity for 
education.
  As I said, there would be four issues that would be discussed. We can 
check off three of the four already. Only the concept of ``liberty'' 
has yet to be addressed here. Some of them may be non sequiturs, but 
they were still there nonetheless. I guess the last statistic that 
still can be put out there as to whether this program works or not 
deals with the parents who, when the free market of ideas was opened up 
to them, they chose this program. They wanted this program. They wanted 
to maintain this program, and they will flock back to it.
  Since my good friend Mr. Hastings also used a baseball reference to 
tie me, I have to one-up him one more time. In the words of the great 
Satchel Paige, who was consulting a struggling pitcher who was failing 
to get it over on the corners, he just said, Throw the pitch. Just 
throw strikes. Home plate don't move.
  This program is one of those strikes. All we need to do is throw it. 
Home plate don't move.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Before yielding, I'll one-up the one-upper: 
Satchel Paige also said, Don't look back.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend and 
colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis).

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman.
  This bill, the SOAR Act, reestablishes a program to send D.C. 
students to private elementary and secondary schools. The main issue 
that I struggle with, that this body needs to struggle with, with 
regard to this measure is the justification for pushing Federal will 
onto Washington, D.C., which is counter to local control over 
education, a concept that has broad bipartisan support.
  One of my top priorities in this body is to improve our education 
system--ensure that every child has an effective teacher in a 
classroom, improve accountability for all schools, and provide a 
pathway to college and careers for lifelong success. To be clear, the 
overall state of the schools in Washington, D.C., is a disgrace. A 
recent Education Week study showed a 48.8 percent on-time graduation 
rate. Frankly, we as Americans should be ashamed. We need to do better, 
the Americans who live here in Washington, D.C.
  Yet it's absurd, Madam Speaker, that we as elected officials from 50 
States are executing a right to determine how schools are funded in a 
jurisdiction that doesn't even have a vote in this body. I'm a 
Representative of part of one State, Colorado, and yet here I am in a 
position to make school funding decisions on behalf of Washington, 
D.C., students. We wouldn't do this to Colorado, Ohio, or any other 
State.
  A district near mine in the State of Colorado, Douglas County School 
District, recently enacted a district-wide voucher program. The 
residents of D.C. are no less American than the residents of Douglas 
County, and yet in Douglas County, Colorado, there will

[[Page 4689]]

be candidates that run for school board for the program, candidates 
that run for school board against the program, and the future of 
whether or not vouchers can continue in Douglas County, Colorado, will 
be decided where it should be, by the residents of Douglas County, 
Colorado.
  This vote underscores the need for Washington, D.C., to control its 
own public school system as the State does. In fact, Madam Speaker, I 
think Washington should be a State. Until that day, Congress should 
respect the wishes of D.C. elected officials with regard to the 
administration of their education system.
  I would point out that there is a Federal interest with regard to 
what the States do and what Washington, D.C., does with regard to 
education. States and the District of Columbia should have the 
discretion to make the changes they need to improve education but not 
the discretion to stand back and do nothing. In fact, I worry 
considerably about a recent announcement by Mayor Gray that they would 
fund capital for charter schools at only $2,800 per pupil as opposed to 
the $5,800 that the conventional public schools get.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I would ask for an additional 45 seconds, Mr. Hastings.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 45 
seconds.
  Mr. POLIS. If the elected officials and people of Washington, D.C., 
wanted a system of school vouchers, they would have created it and not 
relied on the Federal Government.
  The important moral imperative of education reform can occur with or 
without vouchers, and at this point in time, I think it's critical to 
give education reformers that are hard at work in the District of 
Columbia a chance to succeed on a route that they have laid out, which 
apparently does not include vouchers at this time.
  I will continue to push for D.C. statehood and for a Federal role 
that encourages transparency and accountability, improves and builds 
upon our successes in public education, and makes sure that we change 
what doesn't work, with the tools and discretion at the local level to 
make those tough decisions.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Again, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to be here and 
also be joined my good friend from Colorado, whom I should probably 
publicly apologize to for saying disparaging things last night. I 
screwed up and I apologize for that.
  However, he presents to us an unusual conundrum that is here on who 
gets to decide what will or will not be allowed. Whatever we do in this 
unique situation, the decision will be made. If we pass the underlying 
bill, we empower parents in Washington, D.C., to make a choice. If we 
don't pass the underlying bill, we prohibit parents in Washington, 
D.C., from making that kind of choice. Once again, when they were 
allowed to make that choice, they had a waiting list for those wishing 
to participate. It's a conundrum whatever we do, yes or no. It makes a 
decision on behalf of the people of Washington, D.C.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to 
inform us as to the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 16\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 17\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, 
my good friend, Ms. Holmes Norton, who knows more about this issue than 
all of us combined.
  Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, and I certainly thank my good friend 
from Florida for his work on not only this bill, H.R. 471, but for his 
strong respect for the District of Columbia and its residents and his 
support for our right to self-government as American citizens.
  I oppose this rule, I oppose this bill, and at the appropriate time, 
I will have a substitute to redirect the funds in this bill in 
accordance with the home-rule wishes of the District of Columbia. May I 
say, I appreciate the words of my good friend from Utah, but I do 
resent the use of the word ``liberty'' at a time when this bill will 
deprive the residents of the District of Columbia of the liberty every 
other district has in deciding local educational decisions for itself. 
They have it in Utah, and we will never be satisfied as long as we do 
not have each and every right you have in Utah.
  Now, the majority ought to approach this rule with caution. Many in 
the House ran on the promise to reduce the power of the Federal 
Government and to reduce the budget. Now, we are 3 months into the new 
Congress, and if they vote for this rule, they will be breaking their 
promises.
  They will be voting for an unprecedented expansion of the Federal 
Government's power into the quintessentially local decision of 
elementary and secondary education. They will be voting for this rule 
against the will of the jurisdiction, the only jurisdiction to which it 
applies, the District of Columbia. They will be voting for this rule 
with no consultation with any elected official in the local 
jurisdiction involved. They will be voting to authorize the Federal 
Government to mandate that a local government offer a program for 
students to attend private schools at public expense, Federal expense, 
that is. They will be voting to increase the deficit by $300 million 
with no offset whatsoever for these funds because this is a new program 
and their own protocols demand an offset for new programs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. To complete her thought, I yield the 
gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. NORTON. So in the first test of their legislative cut-go 
protocol, they will be voting to violate it. They will be voting to do 
so with $300 million added to the deficit at a time when they are 
cutting $11.6 billion with a ``b'' from education throughout the United 
States of America. We are American citizens.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, again, I appreciate the 
opportunity of discussing this particular issue.
  There is one effect where the Delegate from the District of Columbia 
does have something in common with the State of Utah. Over 70 percent 
of my land is owned by the Federal Government in Utah, and it is one of 
those factors that inhibits our ability to fund our education system in 
the State of Utah. The District of Columbia has that same initiative 
problem with so much of the land owned by the Federal Government.
  The difference, though, is that this program is giving Federal money 
to the District of Columbia to fund not just the scholarship 
opportunity but also increased funds to fund their charter schools, as 
well as funds to fund the regular public education system. In that 
respect, I wish we were very similar to what's happening in the 
District of Columbia, but unfortunately we are not.

                              {time}  1300

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question 
so that we can address this important issue of currency manipulation 
and trade.
  Manufacturers in my home State of Rhode Island and those across the 
Nation are working hard and playing by the rules, and they are 
suffering disproportionately because their Chinese counterparts refuse 
to play by the same set of rules in the global economy.
  One way Chinese businesses cheat is by keeping their currency 
artificially low so that their imports are cheaper than U.S. goods. 
That is simply not fair, and this practice must end. Artificially low 
Chinese currency contributes greatly to the global trade imbalance, 
which puts U.S. businesses and workers at a significant disadvantage.

[[Page 4690]]

  China's unfair currency manipulation has destroyed millions of good-
paying American jobs and jeopardizes the future of the American middle 
class. Employment in manufacturing shrank from 20 million jobs in 1979 
to fewer than 12 million jobs today. In Rhode Island, we experienced 
the loss of more than 30,000 manufacturing jobs in the last decade 
alone.
  Despite these sobering statistics, the American manufacturing sector 
is in the midst of a resurgence. If this vital economic engine is to be 
sustained, Congress must continue its investments in programs that help 
manufacturers compete in the global economy, ending currency 
manipulation. And by doing that, we can level the playing field for 
American manufacturers, give them a fighting chance to compete, and 
speed up our economic recovery and create jobs.
  With so many factories shuttered, small businesses barely hanging on, 
and Rhode Island workers continuing to look for jobs, we can't afford 
to wait any longer for the Chinese to correct their unfair trade 
practices. That's why I am proud to cosponsor this legislation to end 
China's unfair currency manipulation, because in States like Rhode 
Island, we have to fight back against countries like China that won't 
stick to their obligations under international agreements and play by 
the rules.
  If our country is going to compete in the global economy, we have to 
guarantee that manufacturers are not disadvantaged by an uneven playing 
field in foreign trade. We must demand that China play by the rules.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time 
so I can find another baseball metaphor.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Sort of like ``Joe DiMaggio was against 
vouchers.''
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield myself 10 seconds 
to explain that we are still on the D.C. voucher matter, but the 
previous question is with reference to Chinese currency.
  With that, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman, my good friend from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the Republican follies go on. The 
Republicans have done nothing in their 13 weeks in charge of this House 
to help Americans get jobs, nothing to open markets for businesses to 
expand, nothing to open up markets overseas for American workers and 
businesses to compete more fairly. While they hold the economy hostage 
to their cultural war agenda, maybe we could do something to help the 
American people.
  I rise today in support of the effort to defeat the previous question 
so that we can take a first step toward addressing the egregious 
imbalance between China's currency and our own. For too long, the 
Chinese have been playing unfairly in the international trade arena, 
and this Congress has to send a clear message that China must become a 
responsible player in multilateral trade. The Chinese export-driven 
strategy is smart, but subsidizing it by suppressing their currency is 
an unfair way to do it.
  This effort is a good step, and we should follow up by working 
together with our trading partners to bring a multilateral WTO case 
against China on the currency issue. This commonsense legislation helps 
the Commerce Department do a fairer job for making the multilateral 
mechanisms more available to U.S. businesses. We must send a clear 
signal with this legislation that the American people respect 
international agreements and expect fairness.
  After years of an unlevel playing field, it is time to act; and this 
motion to defeat it and bring it to the floor is the right kind of 
measured first step we can take now. I hope the Republicans will join 
us in helping this economy. I am tired of reading the Constitution and 
all the silly things we have done for the last 13 weeks. When are we 
going to see anything having to do with job creation?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, some of the 15 million unemployed Americans no doubt 
got together with some of their friends this morning around a kitchen 
table and talked about another fruitless day of job searching, another 
sleepless night, another paycheckless Friday that's coming. And I 
wonder, Madam Speaker, what they would think about what's going on on 
the floor of this House today. At a time when there are 15 million 
Americans out of work, the House majority has decided to pretend that 
it is the District of Columbia Board of Education.
  Now, there are profound issues about the quality of schools for 
children in the District of Columbia. I would be guided by their 
elected representative, Ms. Holmes Norton, who speaks for them but 
tragically does not have the right to vote on their behalf. She should 
have that right. But beyond that, what are we doing?
  This is a time when Americans are struggling and suffering and losing 
their homes. What we should be doing is coming together, Republicans 
and Democrats, on this floor to create an environment where 
entrepreneurs and small businesses can create jobs for the American 
people.
  We have a proposal on the floor right now that would say the 
following: Let's stop China from unfairly manipulating its currency 
that puts American manufacturers at a disadvantage.
  It is estimated that 1 million manufacturing jobs could be added in 
this country if the Chinese were made to stop their unfair practice of 
discriminating and manipulating currency. Now, you may think that's a 
good idea or a bad idea. I think it's a good idea. But why don't we 
take a vote on that instead of how to run the District of Columbia 
Public Schools? That's a question that the voters of the District of 
Columbia should decide for themselves. What we ought to decide is to 
get our act together and get Americans back to work.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am not objecting at all to the concepts and the 
comments about Chinese trade. I think that's a legitimate issue. It has 
its time and place, perhaps not necessarily on this particular bill. 
But as an approach that the opposition, the minority, wishes to take, I 
can understand that.
  I do, though, have my baseball analogy still here, and I'm not going 
to count the DiMaggio joke because that was made up. That was not a 
true one. But it is true that Casey Stengel at one time, talking about 
I think one of the best second basemen ever, Bobby Richardson, said: I 
just can't understand it. He doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, he 
doesn't stay out at night, and he still can't hit .250.
  Now, even though a healthy lifestyle may extend a career, it still 
has no ability or connection to the ability of hitting a curve ball. 
But those kind of non sequiturs are part and parcel of the entire 
debate that we will be having not just on this rule but also extended 
on to the other debate as well.
  I find it personally very difficult to understand why anyone would 
oppose this bill, which only expands choices for D.C.'s brightest and 
least financially blessed schoolkids and does not subtract from school 
funding for D.C. public schools. In fact, it increases funding while 
keeping within Federal budget disciplines. It increases the percentage 
of money going to the charter school program as well as to the public 
schools. This is a win-win-win situation because it sends money to 
three distinct efforts: the regular public school; the charter schools, 
which have a waiting list more than ever before; and also this 
Opportunity Scholarship Program, which had a waiting list and will 
again as well.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 4691]]



                              {time}  1310

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, my friend is absolutely 
correct about the Joe DiMaggio comment. But I've been around long 
enough to remember the Washington Senators. One of my personal friends 
played baseball with them, Earl Battey, and I won't tell you some of 
the things that Earl said to me when it wasn't about school vouchers.
  But I leave to the seriousness of the moment 5 minutes of my 
remaining time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton), who has, with great persistence, tried to get clarity about 
taxation without representation.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, you know, in the later days of European 
colonialism, countries like France allowed some representation from the 
colonies because the whole notion of voting on the fate of the colonies 
with nobody there who could also vote seemed even then to be a dilemma 
they could not live with. And I don't understand how any Member of the 
House believes she has a right to vote on local education matters or 
any other local matter affecting any part of the United States, 
including the District of Columbia.
  I note, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Polis of the Rules Committee 
indicated yesterday that there was a county in Colorado that had 
created its own voucher program. I respect that because they didn't 
come to the Federal Government to ask that their local voucher program 
be funded, nor, Madam Speaker, did we.
  I think every Member of this House ought to ask, since we've had 5 
years of a voucher bill, why is there no national bill on the floor? I 
think the gentleman from Florida has said one of the good reasons, and 
that is that the Bush Department of Education found that, when compared 
with the students in comparable schools in DC, there was no increase in 
test scores in math or reading. So there's a merit reason why there's 
no national bill.
  But there's another reason why. The majority doesn't have the nerve 
to put a national voucher bill on the floor because it knows that in 
each and every state referendum, including in referendums in Utah, from 
which my good friend comes, not once has such a referendum succeeded.
  I don't know why the majority thinks it can go home now and say I 
voted for vouchers, when you, yourselves, were against the use of 
public money for private schools in your district. I would not like to 
be at that town meeting where you have to explain why you voted for a 
rule for $300 million for one district that did not want that money for 
that purpose.
  Madam Speaker, I very much resent the use of Article I, Section VIII 
of the Constitution whenever the majority wants to move in on the 
District of Columbia with one of its pet ideas, or because it disagrees 
with some issue in the District of Columbia. That's quintessentially 
the absence of democracy.
  It's one thing to have no democracy. It's another thing to press your 
version of policy on another jurisdiction. That's why I have an 
alternative, a substitute that I will be bringing at an appropriate 
time.
  Madam Speaker, in 1973, after 150 years, this Congress finally said 
we have been wrong for most of the existence of our country in allowing 
no democracy whatsoever in the District of Columbia, no mayor, no city 
council. We give up. We delegate self-government to you. We are out of 
your affairs.
  Self-government means nothing if the District of Columbia can still 
be a dumping ground for every pet project and pet idea of the majority. 
We have our own pet ideas, and we will insist on respect for our own 
ideas, and not yours.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend from 
Utah that I am going to be the last speaker.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will yield 10 minutes if the gentleman from 
California wants it. Otherwise, I will be happy to use what he does not 
use.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, first, let me thank my friend for his 
superb management of this rule and to say that I have the utmost 
respect for my colleague from the District of Columbia. Since I reside 
here in the District of Columbia, she represents me here in this 
institution. And when I'm here--of course I'm a Californian, first and 
foremost--but when I'm here, I get her newsletters in the mail. She and 
I have served on a commission together, focused on reform of this 
Congress in the 1990s, and I do have the utmost respect for her.
  That is one of the main reasons that we chose, when she offered the 
one amendment to this measure, to make it in order, because there's 
been a commitment that Speaker Boehner and I and others have made that 
we want to have a free-flowing debate. And I think that the notion of 
concluding that somehow this is a cut-and-dried issue was really wrong.
  I have to say that I felt, as I sat in the Rules Committee last night 
and listened to my good friend and I listened to Mr. McGovern, I was 
really saying, my gosh, maybe there is no support for this measure at 
all. Especially when Mr. McGovern, the second ranking Democrat on the 
Rules Committee, said every city council member in the District of 
Columbia is opposed to this measure. In fact, he said it not once but 
two, maybe even three, times.
  And then I was handed a list. And I have just been told that Mr. 
Bishop raised at the beginning that there are going to be lists on 
either side.
  But the notion, to conclude, Madam Speaker, that we somehow are 
imposing the will of the majority on the people of the District of 
Columbia, that there's no support for this whatsoever, which is what I 
inferred from what was offered in the Rules Committee last night, is 
just plain wrong.
  I don't often cite the editorial work of The Washington Post, but The 
Washington Post has editorialized strongly in support of this notion. 
Why? Because they're committed, as I believe we all are, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, I believe that all of my colleagues are committed to 
improving educational opportunities for our fellow Americans.
  I think that what we need to recognize is that educational choice is 
an important thing, and that's why The Washington Post has 
editorialized in support of this.
  And then when one looks at the list of D.C. leaders, some currently 
holding office, some formerly having held elective office here in the 
District of Columbia, the notion that there's only one voice that's 
elected by the people of the District of Columbia is an inaccurate one.
  The fact is, the chairman of the city council, chairman-at-large, 
Kwame Brown, is a supporter of this measure. The former mayor, Adrian 
Fenty. I recognize that he did not win reelection. I don't know that 
this was the sole determinant in the outcome of that election. But 
Adrian Fenty, in fact, is a supporter of this measure.
  The mayor before that, Anthony Williams, is a supporter of this 
measure. Marion Barry, the former mayor; Kevin Chavous, former chairman 
of the D.C. City Council Education Committee; Patrick Mara, the D.C. 
school board member; and, of course, the often-cited Michelle Rhee, the 
former D.C. school chancellor, they all happen to be supporters of this 
measure.
  And so that's why, some elected, some not elected, some hold office 
today, some formerly held office, but I believe, Madam Speaker, that 
every single one of these people, along with the editorial pages, as I 
said, of The Post, The Journal, a number of other publications, lots of 
organizations are very, very committed to ensuring the quality of 
education is improved in the District of Columbia, and, Madam Speaker, 
they are very, very committed to ensuring that we see the

[[Page 4692]]

quality of education improved across this country.

                              {time}  1320

  It is very important for us to do that. And that is why I find it 
very interesting that the previous question battle that we are dealing 
with here is one that is designed to focus on the issue of 
international trade and creating jobs here in the United States.
  I can understand there is a great deal of concern about the fact that 
jobs have fled overseas. That has happened because of the policies of 
the United States of America. The fact that we have the highest tax 
rate on job creators of any country in the world, the fact that we have 
chosen over the last few years to stick our heads in the sand when it 
has come to market opening opportunities through trade agreements which 
have been signed by our past administration and the leaders of other 
countries, is an indication that we have chosen to ignore great job-
creating opportunities. And I am speaking about these trade agreements, 
the ones that President Obama said that he would like to see us pass 
here in the House. First, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which he 
talked about. And I am grateful that he talked about the importance of 
Colombia and Panama, two agreements that were actually signed before 
the completion of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
  Now, Madam Speaker, if we were to focus attention on those items, 
plus reducing that top rate on job creators from 35 percent to 25 
percent, that would do more to create job opportunities than almost 
anything we could do.
  And then we get back to the core issue here, and that is education. 
We need to make sure that the United States of America, as we seek to 
remain competitive in this global economy, that we have the best 
educated young people. That is why educational choice, I believe, is 
critically important.
  We are going to have an opportunity for debate. The Rules Committee 
has chosen to make in order and give 40 minutes of debate to my friend 
from the District of Columbia so we will be able to continue this 
exchange.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor of the previous 
question, and in so doing, we will be able to pursue tremendous items 
like the pending three free trade agreements and reducing the top rate 
on corporate income, those on job creators, so that we can generate 
more job opportunities in this country.
  Vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Vote ``yes'' on the rule. I 
believe that the underlying legislation will dramatically enhance the 
opportunity for young people in the District of Columbia to have 
educational opportunities that they otherwise would not have.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield 1 minute of that time to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. No one ever said that everybody in the District of 
Columbia or even every public official was against vouchers.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I just said that Mr. McGovern in the debate last night in 
the Rules Committee said that every city council member, and then I was 
given this list.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Ms. NORTON. On the contrary, a letter is on its way up here from city 
council members. The present mayor opposes the bill. Yes, the former 
mayor was for the bill. The largest demonstration of citizens since I 
have been in the Congress was held when this bill was imposed on the 
District of Columbia.
  If you ask people in the District of Columbia, ``Would you support 
some Federal money for vouchers?'' a lot of them will say yes. If you 
ask them the right question, ``Would you want money for private school 
vouchers or would you want money for public charter schools?'' hands 
down, they will say, relieve those long waiting lists of all of us 
trying to get in our public charter schools and give the money to our 
public charter schools.
  Nobody on that side of the aisle knows anything about the residents 
of the District of Columbia or they never would have put this bill in 
in the first place.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my 
time, and I will tell the gentleman from Florida that I am prepared to 
close when he is.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, and I shall conclude.
  I say to the chairman, before he leaves the room, that if any 
American corporation is paying 35 percent corporate tax, they need to 
fire their accountants.
  Madam Speaker, if the people of the District of Columbia wanted a 
school voucher program, they would have created one--without the 
interference of Congress.
  This pilot program was allowed to expire for a reason: It didn't 
work.
  Why the self-proclaimed party of fiscal conservatism would support 
authorizing millions, 300 of those, in new spending for a downright 
useless program with no offset is beyond me. It is time for Republicans 
to take their hands out of the internal affairs of the District, and 
instead focus on what our constituents sent us here to do--rebuild our 
economy and put Americans back to work.
  At a time when our Nation's schools and communities find themselves 
in dire fiscal straits, we should not be throwing money away to revive 
a program that has, by all objective measures, failed.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question, so we can debate and pass real jobs legislation 
today, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Once again, I appreciate the discussion, I 
appreciate my good friend from Florida if for no other reason that all 
of a sudden people are now sending me baseball stories and analogies 
here. I have one from Casey Stengel which I will save for the next time 
we join together here on the floor.
  Madam Speaker, it is fairly clear what we are dealing with in this 
particular bill. This is money that is within our Federal budgetary 
discipline. We are talking with this bill about money that would go to 
the traditional public education system in the District of Columbia, an 
equal amount of money that would go to the charter schools which does 
have a waiting list here in the District of Columbia, as well as money 
that would go to this new opportunity scholarship.
  Once again, with our dueling statistics, whether one wants to say 
that it was successful or not, the bottom line is still there were 
parents who wanted that program, there were parents who complained when 
the program was taken away from them by Congress, and there are parents 
who still want this program reestablished. They want those options for 
their children.
  We have a choice here. If we act favorably on this bill, we empower 
those parents. If we refuse to act favorably on this bill, then we 
limit those parents and the choices that they seem to want. That is one 
of those issues that is there.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate the fairness of this 
structured rule. I urge its adoption, along with the underlying 
legislation. I urge members to support this rule which will allow the 
House to consider good legislation that affords bright and competitive 
D.C. students with an enhanced opportunity to pursue a higher quality 
of education while not harming the underlying public education system 
in the District of Columbia.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 186 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       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. 
     639) to amend title VII

[[Page 4693]]

     of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that countervailing 
     duties may be imposed to address subsidies relating to a 
     fundamentally undervalued currency of any foreign country. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means. 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 the bill specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        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 opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move 
the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 186, if 
ordered; and approval of the Journal, by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 182, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 199]

                               YEAS--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--182

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski

[[Page 4694]]


     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barton (TX)
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Carson (IN)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Costello
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Ruppersberger
     Shuler
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1353

  Ms. BROWN of Florida, Messrs. TIERNEY, CLARKE of Michigan, HONDA, 
ISRAEL, and Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  THE SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 178, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                               YEAS--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--178

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Brooks
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Carson (IN)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Davis (IL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Hayworth
     Heller
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Shuler
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1400

  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.

                          ____________________