[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 154 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7041-H7047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10, SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY
AND RESULTS REAUTHORIZATION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 692, DEFAULT PREVENTION ACT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 480 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 480
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 consideration of
the bill (H.R. 10) to reauthorize the Scholarships for
Opportunity and Results Act, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The
amendments recommended by the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered
as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
The bill, as amended, 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 the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each further
amendment may be offered 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, 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
on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 692) to ensure
the payment of interest and principal of the debt of the
United States. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 Florida (Mr. Hastings),
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 480 provides for
consideration of H.R. 10, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results
Reauthorization Act, and H.R. 692, the Default Prevention Act.
These bills are important steps forward on two issues of great
importance to Americans: education and fiscal issues.
H.R. 10, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization
Act, also known as the SOAR Reauthorization Act, would continue
important funding provided to help young students here in Washington,
D.C., reach their full potential. This legislation would provide $60
million annually for 5 years, split equally among the District's public
schools, charter schools, and the District of Columbia Opportunity
Scholarship Program, which enables low-income students to attend a
private school that would otherwise be out of their reach.
Two amendments to the bill have been made in order for consideration,
one by a Republican and another by a Democrat.
I have great confidence that the SOAR Reauthorization Act is a
positive step for students in the District of Columbia and that,
through its example, it will provide a model for success that could be
adopted by States across the country.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 692, the Default
Prevention Act. As my colleagues are all aware, the Treasury Department
has asserted that its ability to use extraordinary measures to avoid
reaching the statutory debt limit will be exhausted in coming days,
possibly by November 3.
The legislation before us is a vital step to take default off the
table, should extraordinary measures be exhausted, providing certainty
to financial markets and hardworking Americans that we will pay our
debts and meet our obligations.
The Default Prevention Act would authorize the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue debt obligations necessary to continue making
principal and interest payments on our debt, and would also ensure
continued access to the funds in the Social Security trust fund
necessary to pay Social Security benefits in full.
Mr. Speaker, it is simply common sense that we permanently close out
the possibility of default and give seniors and other Social Security
beneficiaries confidence that they will continue to receive the funds
they rely on.
We can protect the full faith and credit of the United States and
ensure that our credit ratings and economy are not impacted by policy
battles here in Congress over future spending policies.
Mr. Speaker, I commend this rule and both of the underlying bills to
my colleagues for their support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding the
customary 30 minutes to me for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, which provides
for consideration of both H.R. 10, the Scholarships for Opportunity and
Results Reauthorization Act, and H.R. 692, the Default Prevention Act.
Once again, we are playing grab bag rules, and I maintain that that is
not the process of regular order.
Each time I have the privilege of managing a rule which, with only
four
[[Page H7042]]
members of the minority on the committee, happens quite often, I find
myself in the same position: frustrated with my friends, the House
Republicans', complete disregard for regular order; their use of one
rule to consider multiple unrelated pieces of legislation; and, most
significantly, disillusioned that, in a time when so much can and must
be done for the American people, we continue to spend precious time
with partisan, dead-on-arrival measures.
H.R. 10 would reauthorize the Opportunity Scholarship Program through
the years 2021. OSP is the only federally created and funded elementary
and secondary private school voucher program in the United States.
Last night, my friend from Utah came forward and spoke, as is his
responsibility. And I would just ask him, do they have the same program
in Beaver, Utah, or Centerville, Utah, or Altamont?
I didn't know they had an Altamont. I come from Altamonte Springs,
Florida. They spell it without the E. But they don't have this voucher
program that they are trying to foist on the District of Columbia.
The program, which awards need-based scholarships to children in the
District of Columbia to attend a participating private school of their
choice, was created in 2004 and last reauthorized in 2011.
I would like to note from the outset that the current school voucher
program is authorized through September 2016. That is almost a full
year from now. Given the numerous pressing and time-sensitive matters
facing this body, I can't help but feel bewildered as to why we are
rushing to reauthorize D.C. school vouchers, yet we continue to ignore
our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, income inequality, the need for
jobs, immigration reform, the need for sensible gun control in the wake
of mass shootings and countless other deaths at the instance of guns,
particularly children, and our lack of a long-term budget. I continue
to await a straight answer from my Republican colleagues and hope that
we can get this question answered before today's debate concludes.
Now, I also want to make something clear. The members of the
Washington, D.C. City Council have said that they do not want the D.C.
voucher program to be reauthorized.
{time} 1245
In a letter to the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, the majority of the members of the D.C. Council
expressed their belief that ``Federal funds should be invested in the
existing public education system--both public schools and public
charter schools--rather than being diverted to private schools.''
They go on to describe past findings on vouchers, saying that ``the
evidence is clear that the use of vouchers has had no statistically
significant impact on overall student achievement in math or reading,
or for students from schools in need of improvement.''
Despite this very clear letter, in what I can only describe as
``typical Republican fashion,'' this body is going full steam ahead in
its efforts to impose its political will regardless.
I remind those here today and watching at home that Washington, D.C.,
is a Federal district. Congress maintains the power to overturn laws
approved by the D.C. Council, can vote to impose laws on D.C., and gets
final approval of the D.C. Council's budget.
Washington, D.C.'s Delegate to the House of Representatives, my very
good friend and a mentor to all of us not only on this issue, but
countless others, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has served in this
body for 24 years, is not permitted to vote on final passage of any
legislation, let alone legislation directly intended to govern the
jurisdiction which she was elected to serve.
One might hope that Congress would consider the wishes of the
representatives of Washington, D.C., and the nearly 660,000 residents
of the District who are taxpayers without representation. But, as we
see today, that simply isn't the case.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation would make significant
changes to the way in which the program is evaluated, and that is a
problem.
In 2012, The Washington Post published an article titled ``Quality
Controls Lacking for D.C. Schools Accepting Federal Vouchers.'' The
piece examined some of the schools receiving vouchers.
Among them were ``a nondenominational Christian school'' that
``occupies a soot-stained storefront between a halal meat shop and an
evening wear boutique.'' The school consists of two classrooms, and
``students travel nearly 2 miles down Georgia Avenue to the city's
Emery Recreation Center'' for gym class.
Another school ``follows a learning model known as `Suggestopedia,' a
philosophy of learning developed by a Bulgarian psychotherapist Georgi
Lozanov that stresses learning through music, stretching, and
meditation.''
A third is described as ``an accredited K-8 school supported by the
Nation of Islam,'' which ``occupies the second floor of a former
residence east of the Anacostia River.'' The classrooms are described
as being former bedrooms, and the only bathroom in the school was
described as having ``a floor blackened with dirt and a sink coated in
grime. The bathtub was filled with paint cans and cleaning supplies
concealed by a curtain.''
With descriptions like this of schools just a few miles away from
this Chamber, I would like to think we would want more evaluations on
these schools, not less.
Moving on to H.R. 629, a very bogus bill that plans for the
unprecedented default on the full faith and credit of the United
States, this measure is a debt prioritization bill and one that
elevates the payments of debts to bondholders, including Switzerland,
the Cayman Islands, and China, and they would be paid over the
obligations to America's troops, veterans, seniors, and students, as
well as Medicare recipients.
As Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee astutely
put it: ``Under this legislation, the effect would be to pay China''--
and Japan and others--``first, and some Americans not at all.''
We have been down this road before. Indeed, the debt limit standoff
and government shutdown of 2013 cost an estimated 120,000 jobs and
disrupted public and private credit markets so profoundly that the
total estimated borrowing costs for the Federal Government, businesses,
and homeowners during that crisis totaled approximately $70 million.
Defaulting on our debt is simply not an option, and H.R. 629 is, as
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew put it, ``default by another name.''
We cannot play this game. We need to be about the business of
honoring our obligations. The last time we went down this road our debt
rating was lowered, and I suggest it may happen again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Stewart).
Mr. STEWART. I would like to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I come from a family of educators. My father taught me
in fifth grade. My brother and sister are both teachers. My wife is a
teacher. One of my sons recently spent 2 years doing Teach for America
in an inner-city school before he started graduate school.
Every weekend, it seemed, while he was teaching, we would hear
stories and personal experiences of children who desperately needed
help to get the education that they needed so they had any chance, any
hope, of being successful in life.
And, finally, I am also the father of six children. I understand in a
deeply personal way how important it is that we teach our children and
educate our children.
This idea goes back to Jamestown, 1609, where literally for the first
time in the history of the world we made a commitment that we would
educate all of our children, that every village, every town, every
community would educate all of our children. That is what the SOAR
program is about: giving all of our children the opportunity to
succeed.
So let's look at the program and see what it has accomplished. Since
2004, more than 6,000 children have had the opportunity to attend a
private school of their choice. This has changed the trajectory of
their lives. More than 90
[[Page H7043]]
percent of them now graduate from high school, compared with 58 percent
throughout the rest of Washington, D.C. Eighty-eight percent of them go
on to a 2- or a 4-year university. Eighty-five percent of their parents
express satisfaction with this program.
Why in the world would you want to take that away? How could you not
support this program? How could you not want to give these children the
opportunity to succeed? Why in the world would you put the interests of
unions and teachers above the interests of these children who
desperately need our help?
I would ask my colleagues to support this rule and to support the
underlying legislation. Give these kids an opportunity to succeed. That
is all we are asking for.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to tell me
how much time remains for both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 20 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 25 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me respond to the gentleman from Utah who spoke of his family's
background and education.
Firstly, my former wife, who is now deceased, taught school for 35
years, first and second grade. My son, who has his Ph.D., as my
friend's son is about the business of getting his graduate degree,
worked in education, taught sixth grade for a number of years, and then
recruited schoolteachers for Palm Beach County and Broward County in
Florida.
The question was why would we not want to educate every child, and
the gentleman referenced a period in 1609 when we certainly were not
educating every child. I went to school for the first time in 1941 to a
school that was built by Julius Rosenwald, and I recommend a
documentary that is in the movies throughout the country now. Mr.
Rosenwald, at the insistence of Booker T. Washington, built schools for
Black children, 642 of them, in the South, where there were none.
My mother didn't have an opportunity to go to that school. Other
people in my town never had an opportunity to get an education, and you
come here and you talk about why would we not want this education.
If it is so good, then why isn't it everywhere? And why are you
picking on the District of Columbia? Perhaps someone who knows that
very well will be able to tell us more than myself with my passion.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton),
my very good friend, a member of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding and for
his passion for our children.
Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the gentleman who wants to know why
would we want to take away vouchers from these children is that we
don't want to take vouchers away from these children. We want those who
are currently in the program to maintain their voucher until they
graduate.
But I should caution Members on both sides about voting for $100
million for a private school voucher program for a District that didn't
ask for it while the Republican majority has pending a $2 billion cut
for K-12 education for kids in their own districts.
The irony is that, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker, he first proposed
private school vouchers, but as conservative as he was, he worked with
me on a home rule public charter school alternative. The D.C. Council
had voted for charter schools, but there were only two or three
fledgling schools and charters weren't going anywhere.
Today, Mr. Speaker, there are 115 public charter schools in the
District, and the reason is that, with my support, Speaker Gingrich
placed H.R. 3019 in the 1995-1996 omnibus legislation establishing the
D.C. public charter school board.
Today almost half of D.C. students go to publicly accountable charter
schools, and most of these schools have long waiting lists. That, my
friend, is what choice looks like.
Another speaker has now stepped forward with a private school voucher
program to be authorized for the third time today, although the
evaluation that Congress mandated definitively shows that the program
failed to meet its stated goal to help children improve.
{time} 1300
Vouchers did not improve math or reading scores for the children from
low-income neighborhoods in this program, and that was the reason for
the bill in the first place.
In light of that failure, I offered a compromise, and the President
supports it. All of the students in the current voucher program would
remain until graduation, but no new students would be funded. That
would mean years of private school vouchers, but only in the District
of Columbia, because this Congress has just voted down similar private
school vouchers for the Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. NORTON. That, my friends, is what compromise looks like: first,
phenomenal growth of public charter schools, which are supported by
both Congressional Republicans and Democrats; second, allowing all
current students to remain in private voucher schools until graduation.
If more compromises like this were on the floor, the majority would not
be divided into multiple factions that have nothing to show for years
of leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is a big surprise to see a member of the
minority opposing the provision of additional education funding to low-
income students.
My colleague earlier mentioned that some members of the D.C. Council
oppose H.R. 10. I would like to bring it to the attention of the House
that D.C. Councilwoman Anita Bonds has asked that her name be removed
from that letter, saying: ``I am hopeful that many more of our neediest
families have the opportunity to take advantage of the program.'' She
knows that students in public, charter, and private schools all benefit
equally from this legislation, and I welcome her support.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
want to thank the Rules Committee for reporting H.R. 692 to the floor.
This Nation now staggers under more than $18 trillion of debt, nearly
a $7.5 trillion run up by this administration alone. The interest on
that debt is one of the fastest growing components of the Federal
budget. If there is ever any doubt over the security and reliability of
the debt owed by this government, the interest rates that lenders
charge us would quickly rise and overwhelm us.
Now, the Democrats say, well, just raise the debt limit, and, of
course, we realize in this era of chronic deficit spending--
establishing new records under this administration--that we have to do
so. Congress alone has the power to incur debt, and the debt limit is
the method by which we discharge our responsibility; but when we do so,
it is also Congress' responsibility to review and revise the policies
that are driving that debt.
The fundamental problem under both Democratic and Republican
Congresses is that this process is fraught with controversy. The bigger
the debt, the bigger the controversy; and the bigger the controversy,
the more likely that credit markets are to demand higher interest
payments to meet their greater risk. Given the size of our debt, that
could produce an interest tidal wave that could sink our budget and our
Nation along with it.
The Default Prevention Act simply provides that, if the debt limit is
reached, the Treasury Secretary may continue to borrow above that limit
for the sole purpose of paying principal and interest that is due. It
is an absolute guarantee that the debt of the United States will be
honored.
Most States have various laws to guarantee payment of their debts. In
fact, a few years ago, Ben Bernanke praised these State provisions for
maintaining confidence in their bonds. It amazes me that we can't all
agree on this simple principle: that we should guarantee the loans made
to the Federal Government. That is all this bill does.
[[Page H7044]]
Yet we have heard opposition from the other side, and they basically
make two charges. One is that this pays foreign governments first while
shorting our troops. We just heard that from the gentleman from
Florida. Well, what xenophobic nonsense. The fact is most of our debt
is held by Americans--often, in pension funds--so it protects Americans
far more than foreign governments.
But they miss the main point. It is the Nation's credit that makes it
possible to meet all of our other obligations. When you are living off
your credit card, as our Nation is at the moment, you had better make
your minimum payment first or you won't be able to pay all of your
other bills.
In the veto threat, the President leveled the other charges we heard
from the gentleman from Florida, that it is just an excuse for not
paying our other bills. Well, do they actually believe that these other
States that have guaranteed their sovereign debts for generations have
ever used these guarantees as an excuse not to pay their other bills?
On the contrary, by providing clear and unambiguous mandates to protect
their credit first, they actually support and maintain their ability to
pay for all of their other obligations.
So let me be crystal clear: delaying payment on any of our
obligations would be unprecedented and dangerous. There is one thing,
though, that could do even more damage than delaying payment on our
other bills, and that is the mere threat of a default on our sovereign
debt. This measure takes that threat off the table, and it ensures
credit markets that their investments in the United States are as
certain as anything can be in life.
A few years ago, Senator Barack Obama vigorously and forcefully
opposed a debt limit sought by the Bush administration. He said it was
a failure of leadership. Well, I have never equated Senator Obama's
opposition to the debt limit increase as anything other than a
principled and well-placed concern over the proper management of our
finances. It is sad that he cannot give the opposition the same
courtesy.
Mr. Speaker, we may disagree over the appropriate role of Congress in
adjusting the debt limit, but at least can't we all agree that during
these disputes the sovereign debt of the United States is never in
doubt? That is all that this bill says; that is all that this bill
does. Mr. Speaker, let's pass this rule and proceed with consideration
of the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California referred to my comments as
``xenophobic nonsense.'' I firmly disagree. It kind of gives xenophobia
a new meaning. I merely pointed out that a large portion of our debt is
held by other countries and that the legislation that he supports
proposes to pay them before 80 million obligations that the Treasury
Department has.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has only 8 legislative days left to protect the
full faith and credit of the United States. If we defeat the previous
question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule and bring up
legislation that would allow--and I would ask the gentleman from
California if he would support this--a clean extension of the debt
ceiling.
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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) to discuss our proposal. My
friend from Vermont is a distinguished gentleman and a former Member of
the Rules Committee.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Raising the debt ceiling has absolutely
nothing to do at all with increasing government spending. It only has
to do with whether America will pay its bills for obligations already
incurred.
Many of those obligations, by the way, are for expenditures that I
vigorously opposed: trillions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, unpaid for, and trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the
very wealthy that are unpaid for.
But the United States of America, in good times and bad, through
Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, in Republican-led and
Democratic-led Congresses, has always paid its bills--always. We have
done it for two reasons.
First, it is the right thing to do. A promise made is a promise kept.
An obligation incurred is an obligation honored. Mr. Speaker, a
confident nation keeps its word. A confident nation pays its bills, not
some of them. It pays all of them.
Second, running from our creditors, stiffing them, picking and
choosing whom to pay among them is as fiscally reckless as it is
dishonorable. This new theory that America can actually consider it
feasible as an option to default is extremely dangerous and very
costly.
Mr. Speaker, in 2011, when this tactic was first seriously considered
and we came on the brink of default, it cost U.S. taxpayers $19 billion
in unnecessary interest charges. That is $19 billion that could have
been used to fix our highways or invest in scientific research, or it
is $19 billion that your side might have preferred for tax cuts, or we
could have split it. But that would have been half for tax cuts and
half for investment. Yet we squandered that at the expense of the
American taxpayer.
The use of the debt ceiling as a tactic to get your way on another
issue is playing financial Russian roulette with America's credibility,
with the well-being of the American taxpayer and the full faith and
credit of the United States of America to meet all its obligations. We
have maintained that bond with ourselves and our creditors for over 200
years, and this bill asks us to abandon it now.
How can it be that the party of Ronald Reagan can propose this
legislation? It was Ronald Reagan who said that denigration of the full
faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on
the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar. He is
right.
How can it be the party of Paul Ryan? The chair of our Ways and Means
Committee said that just refusing to vote for the debt ceiling, I don't
think that is a strategy.
Will the debt ceiling be raised? Does it have to be raised? Yes.
Reagan was right then, and Paul Ryan is right now.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out something that the proponents of
this legislation would prefer to keep in the dark. The entire reason
the debt ceiling must be raised now is to accommodate the budget that
they passed over my strong objection on March 25, 2015. The Price
budget, supported by 228 Republicans and opposed by 182 Democrats,
projected an increase of our debt limit of nearly $2 trillion. Today
that bill has become due, and the folks who supported that budget are
running for the hills on acting on the debt ceiling that is required to
accommodate the budget that they passed.
Mr. Speaker, this House now, as a result of the will of the American
people, is led by a Republican majority. It is a majority that we in
the minority have an obligation to do our best to work with. However,
it is a majority that is raising questions that have never been raised
before.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, they are using debt default and government
shutdown as a tactic to get their way on an issue of concern to some of
them. I admire Speaker Boehner that he put the country first and he put
the House first in not letting this government be shut down over a real
dispute on Planned Parenthood funding. But we have got to get past
this, and the Republican majority has to make a decision whether it is
going to govern or it is going to empower those who believe that
default and shutdown are legitimate tactics to resolve legitimate
debates that we have among us.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot now--we cannot ever--default on our
obligations and our commitment to the American taxpayer to be fiscally
responsible by paying our bills.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
[[Page H7045]]
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 10, but I
wanted to clarify some of the debate that has been going on with my
friend opposite, the gentleman from Florida.
Many of the concerns that he has raised have been addressed in our
Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Specifically, I put forth an
amendment that required strong evaluations that would evaluate the
scholarship program. Additionally, the committee passed an amendment to
ensure not only strong accreditation standards as well, but equally
important is the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. I have made
a personal commitment to her to work on making sure that we have proper
accountability with regard to this scholarship program. None of us
wants to be loose with the American taxpayer dollars.
I want to also stress that this program does not decrease funding for
D.C. public schools or charter schools. Indeed it is an addition to
that appropriation. But it really comes down this, Mr. Speaker: it is
the students that have benefited from this particular program.
I was part of a hearing that was held at Archbishop Carroll High
School. When you look into the faces of those students that were given
an opportunity with a scholarship to not have to go to the school
because of where they live but they got a scholarship to be able to go
to a private school, you look into their faces and you hear the stories
of just how it has affected their families and given them hope, Mr.
Speaker, it is one of those things that I think that we have to find a
bipartisan solution to identify the problem areas, perhaps, that need
to be addressed, but to also come alongside those parents, both fathers
and mothers, who were there in the hearing who were applauding the
successes of their children.
{time} 1315
It is with great pride that I strongly support H.R. 10. I encourage
my colleagues opposite to do the same. I am committed to working
through some of those issues that they have addressed.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
I am pleased to support this rule because of the underlying bill that
is there.
Normally, the 10th Amendment says that education is delegated to the
States. So I would be opposing anything this body does on education,
except the Constitution also grants Congress the jurisdiction over the
District of Columbia.
When there is a program that is a success--and this has been a
success--a study by the Department of Education concluded that this
D.C. Opportunity Scholarship significantly improves students' chances
of graduating from high school.
I spent 28 years as a high school teacher. In that time, I saw all
sorts of wonder programs being mandated from the Federal level and the
State level. The most common expression of all teachers is ``This too
shall pass.''
But the one thing that was never mandated to us was the concept of
freedom, allowing teachers to teach their specialties, allowing parents
the ability of having a choice on where they sent their kids. Choice is
a powerful tool.
When I was in the State legislature, I had a bill that dealt with
compulsory attendance. I had a PTA mother that came up to me once and
said, ``I hate you and I hate your bill because, when my 17-year-old
doesn't want to go to school in the morning, I want to be able to look
at him and say, `You have to go to school. It is the law.' '' And I
thought: Thanks a lot. That is the exact attitude I want to have from a
high school junior in my class when he shows up.
You see, when kids are forced to be where they choose not to be, they
are unsatisfied jerks. But kids, knowing they had a choice, they would
now attend in a positive attitude, even if it was the same school.
That is what this bill tries to do. We trust choice in all sorts of
behaviors. We give people choices in food, in our homes, in our energy,
and all the necessities of life. So why do we limit freedom and choice
in something as important as education?
Ronald Reagan once said: ``Our leaders must remember that education
doesn't begin with some isolated bureaucrat in Washington. It doesn't
even begin with State or local officials. Education begins in the home,
where it's a parental right and responsibility. Both our public and our
private schools exist to aid our families in the instruction of our
children, and it's time some people back in Washington stopped acting
as if family wishes were only getting in the way.''
I applaud Speaker Boehner for this bill. Speaker Boehner, when it
comes to kids, clearly gets it, and he has been an advocate on their
behalf. Kids belong to the parents, not to an educator, not to a
legislator, not to a special interest group.
It is time we start trusting parents and individuals, which is why I
urge support of this rule that will bring this bill, a good bill, to
the floor for us to support as well.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise in support of the rule and urge specific passage of H.R. 10,
the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act.
Over 10 years ago Congress took action to give the children of the
District a hand-up through access to a quality education by creating
the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. I was heavily involved at
that time, as a Member of the House Appropriations Committee that
oversaw the District's budget, and our committee provided the initial
funds.
The program was the first and only initiative in America where the
Federal Government provides low-income families with funds to send
their children where they will have a chance to thrive--private or
parochial schools--because, in some cases, some D.C. schools were not
providing that opportunity. That is not all schools, but some schools.
We all know the story of some District of Columbia public schools--
low graduation rates, high dropout rates, low math and reading scores--
that need to do better. We can all agree that all children in the
District deserve a first-class education and the lifelong benefits that
come from that education, whether it be public, private, parochial, or
charter.
The bill before us today will reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship program for 5 years. By the way, the program is a huge
success. Last year over 3,600 students submitted applications and the
program enrolled nearly 1,500 students.
Through these scholarships, District children have flourished. In
2014, 88 percent of high school graduates who were enrolled in the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship program enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges, a
very high mark.
Mr. Speaker, Congress should listen to the voices of parents, as we
did 10 years ago, who want their children to succeed, and we should
continue to work to ensure that the program not only survives, but that
it grows.
I commend Speaker Boehner for all his years of leadership on behalf
of the children of Washington not only in terms of his support for this
legislation, but many things he does as a private citizen.
I urge my colleagues to join in support of the rule and this
legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We should be working together to ensure that all children have the
opportunity to receive a quality education and taking action to
guarantee that the United States pays all of its bills on time and in
full. Neither of these bills accomplish those vitally necessary goals
for this great country.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question
and vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
These are crucial bills. They make significant progress on two
important issues: addressing our fiscal crisis in a
[[Page H7046]]
responsible manner and the education of our next generation.
We cannot squander the incredible wealth this country has built over
decades of hard work by the American people. The full faith and credit
of the United States is not ours here, as Members of Congress. It is
theirs, the American people. We are the reserve currency because
individuals across the world look to us for prudent fiscal choices and
rock-steady resolve in our principles and integrity.
There are few debates more contentious in this body than those over
spending levels or the leverage points that our system provides to
exert control over those levels.
The Default Prevention Act would enable us to continue to fight tooth
and nail over the right direction for our country's finances while
giving Americans and financial markets certainty that they can remain
confident in the Federal Government meeting its obligations.
We can and should stay up late at night and have passionate debates
in this Chamber over how to address mandatory spending, but we
shouldn't allow retired and disabled Americans to stay up late at night
because they fear their Social Security checks won't arrive.
The Default Prevention Act is commonsense legislation to remove
catastrophe as a possibility by enabling the Secretary of the Treasury
to issue debt necessary to make principal and interest payments on the
national debt and pay Social Security benefits in full. It is the right
first step in beginning a conversation about how to constructively
address our immense fiscal challenges.
If we don't address those challenges, we will be unable to provide
for other important programs, such as the Scholarships for Opportunity
and Results Reauthorization Act, or SOAR Reauthorization Act, which
this resolution provides for consideration of as well.
As any parent knows, the education of our children is one of our
highest priorities. For far too long children in Washington, D.C., have
not received the education they deserve, but have suffered from
unacceptable achievement levels in graduation rates.
The SOAR Reauthorization Act continues a successful three-sector
approach to improving the lives and educational outcomes of low-income
students in the District. It provides $60 million in funding for
students, split equally among D.C. public schools, charter schools, and
scholarships for students to attend private schools that would
otherwise be out of reach.
Students receiving private school education have demonstrated higher
test scores and significantly higher graduation rates, showcasing the
importance of continuing students access to these institutions.
These programs are an important example of the need for innovation
and experimentation in how to best reform our educational system to
benefit students, not entrenched interests.
It has been an honor for me to personally witness some of the
students who have benefited from the programs included in the SOAR
Reauthorization Act. After seeing the hope for the future these
students have in their eyes, I cannot fathom preventing other students
from receiving their own second chances.
Mr. Speaker, I believe both of these underlying bills are positive
steps forward on issues of great import to our Nation, and I commend
them and this rule providing for their consideration to all of my
colleagues for their support.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the
Rule and the underlying bill H.R. 10, the Scholarships for Opportunity
and Results Reauthorization Act.
H.R. 10 would reauthorize the District of Columbia private school
voucher program, the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), for five
years through 2021.
In 2004, Congress established OSP, the first and only federally
created or funded elementary and secondary private school voucher
program in the United States.
In 2011, Congress reauthorized OSP through fiscal year 2016 in the
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (SOAR Act).
Under the SOAR Act, DC households with incomes that do not exceed 185
percent of the poverty line may receive an annual maximum voucher
payment per student of $8,000 for grades K-8 and $12,000 for grades 9-
12.
In addition, H.R. 10 makes a significant change to the evaluation of
OSP's effectiveness.
The bill prohibits a control study group in making evaluations of the
OSP and requires a less rigorous ``quasi-experimental research design''
than under the SOAR Act.
Since 2004, almost $190 million has been spent on DC voucher schools.
That is money that could have been spent on District public schools,
which serve all students.
Instead of working on longer term solutions, such as reauthorizing
ESEA, or working on job creation, the Majority is pushing its own
education priorities on a local jurisdiction through this misguided
legislation.
This bill pursues the wrong course by doing the following:
The voucher program is the latest Republican attack on the District
of Columbia's right to self-government.
The local District government did not request this reauthorization
nor did its only member of Congress, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
If the District wants to establish a voucher program, it has the
authority to do so.
Republicans have already tried to overturn DC's gun, marijuana,
abortion, needle exchange, and non-discrimination laws.
They have also threatened DC's mayor with jail time over the city's
marijuana law. Now they want to write education law in DC.
The bill would authorize the use of federal funds to pay for private
school tuition in the District of Columbia, despite overwhelming
evidence that the program, first authorized in 2004, has failed to
improve student academic achievement, as measured by math and reading
scores--including among the students the program was designed to most
benefit, those from low-performing public schools.
Despite having numerous states vote down efforts to implement private
school voucher programs; Republicans continue to use the District of
Columbia as a testing ground for their own agenda.
The bill does not recognize that 44 percent of DC public school
students attend charter schools, and 75 percent of DC public school
students attend out-of-boundary public schools.
Unlike private schools, traditional public and charter schools are
publicly accountable and subject to all civil rights laws.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this
rule and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 480 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. 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.
3737) to responsibly pay our Nation's bills on time by
temporarily extending the public debt limit, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3737.
____
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
[[Page H7047]]
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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on
this question will be postponed.
____________________