[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.

                          ____________________