creerp.org. we leave now for live coverage of the house as they work on debt prevention and washington, d.c. school voucher bills. also, initial debate on domestic minerals bill. later this afternoon, a bill providing a waiver for a medicare and medicaid program that provides long-term care to persons 55 and older.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. katty: let us pray. -- chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we continue to ask your blessing on all those who are discerning significant options about leadership here in the people's house. you endow all your people with gifts of various designs meant to be used in service to others. may the pressures that come to bear not obscure honest self-reflection and evaluation of the gifts each has to bring to the needs of this time in the people's house. bless all members with the sense of their collective responsibility to our nation and to this assembly so that the american people might look

forward to the coming months with hope and a renewed respect and trust in those whom they have elected. may all that is done today and in the days to come be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittenger. mr. pittenger: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the entlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to address

the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: delegitimizing israel was defeated at unesco. abu mazen is set to head to the u.n. human rights council for an emergency meeting next week where he will spew more of his dangerous rhetoric and inflame the tensions between the palestinians and israelis. the u.s. has had a clear policy of defending israel from these biased attacks at the u.n., but recently we've seen perhaps a troubling shift in policy by the current administration. the administration's refusal to stand publicly and firmly with israel emboldens groups at the u.n. to push forward with these initiatives and undermines long-standing u.s. policy. if the administration won't counter these efforts at the u.n., then congress must use every tool at our disposal to hold these agencies and abu mazen accountable.

mr. speaker, we must send a clear message to all of the member states at the u.n. that congress stands with israel and that we will not allow these efforts to continue that seek to undermine the jewish state, our best ally, and the u.n. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the 2015 rhode island walk for epilepsy, which will take place this saturday, october 24, in pawtucket. one in 26 people will develop epilepsy at some point in their lifetime, and today in the united states, there are 4.3 million adults and 750,000 children who are living with epilepsy or seizure disorder. there is no known cure for epilepsy and it's critical we do more to support research that will help develop new forms of treatment for those suffering this disease. i want to extend my deep gratitude for have been planning this walk for epilepsy and i want to roll call one of

my constituent who i met in april of this year when he was selected to serve as rhode island's speak up conference. robby is an impressive young man which has demonstrated himself to be a strong advocate for epilepsy in rhode island. i send my best wishes for the event. i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. pittenger: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pittenger: mr. speaker, i rise today in memory of my good friend, garland denny, a true and dedicated patriot devoted to helping veterans in need. mr. denny died last week at the age of 84. during the korean war, mr. denny served our country aboard the u.s.s. franklin d. roosevelt. following a long and successful career as a structural steel draftsman, mr. denny spent his retirement advocating for a special postage stamp to raise money for veterans' services. in support of mr. denny, 55

members of the house and senate joined me this summer in writing the u.s. postmaster general of a stamp out ptsd postal stamp to raise money for ptsd research and treatment. we remain committed to mr. denny's goal of helping veterans and overcoming the bureaucracy standing in the way. mr. deppy reminds us that one -- denny reminds us that one committed american can make a big difference. his sons, chuck and james, have joined me today in the house chamber. intend to carry on their father's mission. may god bless you both and your sister sue. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, as republicans bigger behind closed doors, the deadline to raise the debt limit draws closer and closer. if we fail to act in time, interest rates will skyrocket, the dollar will plummet and the

stock market could collapse. that's-on-epable. it's time to -- that's unacceptable. it's time to bring this manufactured crisis to an end. even if the republican leadership does manage to pass a last-minute extension, it will reflect real damage on the economy. economists tells us that the 2011 debt limit standoff cost thousands of jobs and downgraded the credit rating and we're repeating the same mistake today. hat's why the -- unfortunately for conservative republicans, irresponsibility has become a badge of honor and recklessness a source of pride. mr. speaker, the american people want leadership instead of brinksmanship. they want cooperation and compromise instead of deadlock and dysfunction. let's raise the debt ceiling and move on to the critical work of building a stronger and more prosperous nation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> seek recognition to dress

the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, our national debt now stands at more than $18 trillion. mr. marchant: the c.b.o. projects federal debt can exceed $50 trillion in our lifetime. this cannot be sustained. that's why i've introduced the debt management and fiscal responsibility act. this bill provides early and clear-eyed assessment of the debt well before reaching the statutory debt limit. under this bill, the treasury secretary would report on three items. first, the national debt and debt projections. second, debt reduction proposals and, third, regular progress reports to congress on debt reduction. all of this information would be made readily available to the public. the national debt is a shared responsibility, and it will take a shared executive legislative approach to reduce it. we can no longer afford to put

$18 trillion on autopilot. let's deal with it head-on and find a responsible measure to retire the debt before it's too late. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, last week the social security administration announced there would be no cost-of-living adjustment for social security benefits next year. this has seniors in western new york worried. the price of food, housing have increased without an increase in benefits. seniors are asked to do more with less. the formula is not properly reflecting the senior economy. seniors spend more on housing, food and medical care and less on travel and education. that's why i support legislation to adopt a new formula, called the consumer price index for the elderly, that would give weight to price increases and housing and medical care and more accurately reflect the costs incurred by seniors. unless congress acts, the incomes of 60 million americans

will be effectively reduced. that would be bad for our economy and worse for the vulnerable americans that we are here to protect. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, despite the destruction of the 1,000-year flooding, it was people working together led by governor haley, our state is a model for disaster response. i'm glad for our state emergency management division, had 1,600 successful missions and for the first responders for the rescues. credit is due to the department of transportation for their tireless work. during the flooding, over 500 roads and bridges were closed. i know firsthand as the road i live on washed out, the location of our family home for the last six generations, which

was named by my grandmother. donations and volunteers have come from across the nation. the salvation army, led by major roger colston, has provided over 50,000 meals to displaced persons in the flooding. the red cross, inspired by national president mcgovern's visit, has operated 26 shelters. i appreciate the positive spirit of the people of south carolina spontaneously coming together as family and neighbors before turning to government. in conclusion, god bless our troops and the president by his actions must never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. thank you, coach steve spurrier, for developing winning gamecocks. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. while even some of my republican colleagues acknowledge there's chaos in their conference, and that chaos has consequences. governing from one manufactured crisis to another, we have piled up a whole series of

must-act deadlines. in just eight days, the u.s. government will default unless congress acts. once again, republicans jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the united states. unfortunately, that's just one of the deadlines that we face in this calendar of chaos. in just weeks, we got to pass another budget or face another g.o.p.-engineered shutdown. we have to pass a highway trust fund bill, and hopefully not another short-term patch but something that actually gets americans working and rebuilds our infrastructure. sadly, the export-import bank still sits idle, and fortunately a handful of courageous republicans joined all democrats and next week hopefully we'll be able to get that moving again. it shouldn't take that kind of an extraordinary measure. we ought to be able to do it through the normal course of legislation. this chaos is out of hand.

hardworking americans go to work every day. we need to do our job in congress, and that is to do the business of the american people. mr. speaker, we have long past time. we need to get to work. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. lamalfa: the house will vote on the soar act. this will authorize the d.c. opportunity program for the next five years. it is a simple premise. every american child deserves the opportunity to receive a great education. no child should be forced to attend low-performing public schools when alternatives for their parents and children are available right around the corner. education is essential to climbing the ladder of success in this nation, and this bill takes a positive step forward in giving the parents the opportunity to provide more opportunities for their children for a better future for them.

i urge my colleagues to support this responsible measure and thank speaker boehner for bringing this responsible legislation to the floor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from delaware seek recognition? mr. carney: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to urge my colleagues to bring responsible budgeting to our nation's capital. first of all, this means funding the government every year without a shutdown, but also means balancing the budget. since i served in congress, we've been consumed by fights over deficit reduction and budget priorities. we've gone from crisis to crisis, never coming up with a long-term plan. after the crisis is over, nothing happens. recently, i introduced a balanced budget amendment that would add discipline to the budget process and require the government to spend within its means. balanced budget proposals are not new, but unlike most proposals, my amendment

protects social security, enables long-term capital investments and ensures that we can respond to emergencies. in delaware, like most states, the law requires the state to have a balanced budget. as delaware's secretary of finance, i helped make that happen. we should hold the federal government to the same standard. if the united states is going to continue to be the strongest economy in the world, we need to address our budget deficits now. i urge my colleagues to bring order and responsibility to our budget process by passing my amendment. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. . >> mr. speaker, october is national discs election yeah awareness month. this is something close to our family. we watched our daughter to struggle. she read out loud in class and worried what her classmates thought. hard work, our daughter was able

to catch up and surpass her classmates. over time, she discovered her strengths in math and science, which helped her increase her confidence. it wasn't until high school we syndrome. he had the and we are extremely proud of how hard she has worked to overcome these challenges and not let them get in the way of her success. it's important we bring awareness and educate our communities about the impact on families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire seek recognition. >> permission to address the house for one minute. custecuste i rise to recognize the importance of the forest products industry. in my home state of new hampshire, we have a rich

tradition of supporting working forests and recognizing the ways in which our forests contribute to our state's economic livelihood and the vitality of our rural communities. the forest products industry employs over 7,000 and these men and women proudly continue our legacy of responsible forest stewardship, from timber production, our forests provide a wide range of forest products that businesses rely on. my district is home to biomass power plants and wood pellet manufacturing facilities that are important job creating. and i'm proud to serve as co-chair of the bipartisan congressional biomass caucus. as part of our efforts to underscore the economic and environmental contributions to our nation's forests, we must rededicate ourselves to preserving these treasured lands for future generations to come.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> yesterday the house and the senate sent the president the national defense authorization bill requesting his signature which he has now threatened to veto. i sit on the house intelligence committee, i understand how critical it is that our military be prepared and to be prepared, they have to be adequately funded. veeoing means that we don't provide funding and cut our military readiness and can't continue our fight against isis and cuts critical programs such as our missile defense program. the president doesn't have any specific objections to this bill. it funds to the exact level that he has requested.

but by doing this, the president has ignored the primary responsibility that the federal government has to defend and protect the united states. i hope that the president will not fail in that responsibility. i hope he will sign this critically important bill. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today marks three weeks since the mass shooting at umpqua community college that cost nine innocent americans their lives. mr. deutch: the daily tragedy of gun violence drums on. last week in south florida, one was shot to death by her god mother's son. she was 19 and dreamed of becoming a lawyer. last weekend in chicago, a

three-year-old boy was shot to death by his six-year-old brother. they were playing cops and robbers. last night in new york city, a police officer took a gunshot to the head. in the last 96 hours alone, 91 americans have lost their lives to gun violence. that is nearly one person killed by guns every hour in the united states. american people expect us to take action. they expect us to stand up to those who fight to prevent us from taking action and hour by hour goes by in this congress without hearings, without debate and without action. mr. speaker, i will be back next week and the week after that, and the week after that, gun violence won't stop until this congress takes action, and neither will i. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the

house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, our mental health system is abusive and neglectful. mr. murphy: these policies disproportionately impact minorities and the poor. african-americans are 50% less likely to receive treatment. our spending is 40% lower and while there is an overall shortage of professionals, three% of psychiatrists are african-americans. the rate is for latinos and worst for native americans. if you have a mental illness, you are more likely to end up in prison. if you are low income, medicaid makes it harder for you to access mental health treatment and won't let you see two doctors the same day. stop this discrimation. i ask members to co-sponsor and pass the helping families on

mental health crisis act. people with serious mental illness can and do get better with help, but where there is no help, there is no hope. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, it's time to get real about gun violence in america. as the entrusted voices for millions of americans, we have the responsibility to address gun violence in our schools and theaters and our churches, the threat is ever present. most recently a dangerous individual went on the campus in oregon and opened fire taking nine lives and injuring seven. my thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends. a veteran in north carolina was among those injured while rushing into the crossfire in an

effort to diffuse the situation. i'm honored by his bravery and wish him a speedy recovery. from newtown, to aurora to charleston, these senseless shootings are becoming far too common. every day, 88 people die because of gun violence. more than 30,000 americans killed every year. how many lives must be lost before we say now is the right time to pass commonsense legislation to keep guns out of the wrong hands. we can make a difference. we must. but we must take action now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker, today i rise in support of our children and salute the medical researchers and the pediatricians who are seeking to find cures for debilitating and

preventable childhood diseases. the leadership of the u.s. is ucial in helping many of the childhood deaths and maternal deaths. we have included specific provisions in 21st century cures for children. cures bring benefits. let me give you an example. polio in 1988, the world health organization had a resolution to support the worldwide eradication of polio. through the work of american researchers, private citizens, polio vaccines have nearly eradicated this disease worldwide. american leadership should help end preventable childhood and maternal deaths. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? >> florida. the speaker pro tempore: close to new mexico. >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to recognize national forest products week and to acknowledge what an important role our forests play in all of our daily lives. the second district of florida is home to hundreds of thousands of acres of public and private forest land. the national forest in my district alone is nearly 1,000 square miles. just last week i participated in a work day with the nature conserve answery in the forest to learn how responsible management can boost the economic and environmental value of forest land. i'm proud that north florida forests make such an important contribution to our country's economy and our environment.

we depend on wood for the structure of our home, the paper we write on and a million different things in between. but most significantly, for the oxygen we breathe. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> permission to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i also rise today in recognition of national forest products week and the men and women across our country that work in this crucial industry. forest products have been an integral part of the north american economy. from our beginnings, forest products built ships and were the main source of fuel. through our industrialization, forest products became the rail system. today, so much of everything we get, a ship containment in

forest products. it has been the backbone of housing. forest products are green, renewable and sequester carbon. we have been prolific in perfecting our technologies, developing new products and growing more timber. in fact, we have more trees today in america than in 1900. to keep our forests healthy and our economy strong, we need to develop more markets at home and abroad and we need to commit more research to find cost effective ways to use biomass, a vast renewable carbon-neutral fuel source. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. mr. hastings: are you sure i'm not from new mexico? the speaker pro tempore: of course. mr. hastings: i thank all of you, this month all of us know that we are addressing the issue

of breast cancer and cancer generally. i will probably wear this label today for the number of people around our country and world the world that are suffering from cancer. on monday, i participated at ova university with experts in eonomics and i learned that 8% of grants are made from the national institutes of health. that is an incredible resource for all of us and we need to be about the business of increasing the national institute of health's opportunities to go forward on breast cancer. the second part of my remarks this morning, mr. speaker, deal with airport workers specifically in fort lauderdale

and elsewhere. they are fighting for $15 an hour. they clean up the toilets at the airport in broward county. they are the people that carry the people on the airplane with wheelchairs. we can at least afford $15 an hour for them. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> permission to address the ouse for one minute. the gentleman from michigan, without objection. >> i rise today to highlight the potentially grave situation facing our nation's security this week. despite the national defense uthorization act garnering widespread bipartisan support, president obama has threatened to veto it. our soldiers and our families what i find and

most shocking is the president spent the last several months fighting to lift economic sanctions so iran's terrorist army could receive billions in aid and now he's planning to block funding for america's military. this is unbelievable. our soldiers deserves better and america is facing increased threats from around the globe. we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan. we have military families bravely continuing with their lives as loved ones risk their lives. not only do we need to fully fund our troops but show the world when it comes to national security, the united states stands as one strong unified body. mr. speaker, it's time the president drop the partisan games and stands with our troops. it's time he signs the i yold back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i feel compelled to take this opportunity to remind us how great we are as a country, but also to remind ourselves that we're as great as we are as individuals collectively that make our country so great, a country where anyone can practice whatever faith they choose to practice. mr. cardenas: you can come to this country from any part of the world and start anew and perhaps reach heights you could never dream up in other places. we still are the greatest nation on the planet. i'm compelled to say these words because far too often i see almost everywhere i turn where people want to leave this country, they talk about how we're not great and how we need to get back to greatness. we've never lost that greatness and i think it's really important for us to understand as members of congress that our responsibility is to guide this country and to legislate and to

make decisions but to always keep in mind those fundamental responsibilities that we hold true for so many hundreds of years in this country and that we are blessed to be the greatest nation on the planet. and the only way we can do that is we take our personal responsibilities to heart and exercise that every single day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today on the support your local chamber of commerce today. the chamber of commerce appropriately with the extraordinary growth of this parish, we've had a growth in the business, the mom and pop businesses and the large industrial businesses as well. pay atlantaly, the livingston parish was recognized as louisiana state chamber of the year for the mid-sized category

by the louisiana association of chambers of commerce. when you have a parish that grows at rapid rates, you have huge swells in population, you have all sorts of demands in infrastructure but you have demands in the growth of the businesses as well. in particularly, the livingston chamber of commerce was recognized in business resources and representation, community alignment, organizational excellence and professional development. mr. graves: mr. speaker, businesses like north observation health system, rouse market, big mike's sports bar and grill are all businesses that are members of the chamber of commerce. congratulations to the 500 businesses that are members of the livingston parish chamber of commerce, to all the folks in livingston parish. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of

representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 21, 2015, at 9:14 a.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 322, h.r. 323, r. 324, h.r. 558, h.r. 1442, h.r. 1884, h.r. 3059. signed sincerely, karen l. haas.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 480 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 66. resolved, that

at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, 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 re-authorize 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. section 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, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means, and two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, house resolution 480 provides for

consideration of h.r. 10, the scholarships for opportunity d results re-authorization 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 re-authorization act, also known as the soar re-authorization 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 five years split equally among the strict's public schools, charter schools and the district of columbia scholarship opportunity program which allows low-income students to attend private school that would otherwise be

out of reach. two amendment was made in order, one by a republican and one by a democrat. -- two amendments was made in order, one by a republican and one by a democrat. the soar act is a positive step for students in the district of columbia and 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 debt 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'll 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 the underlying bills to my colleagues for their support and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentlewoman

from north carolina for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes 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 re-authorization 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 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, this illusion at

a time when so much can and must be done for the american people, we continue to spend recious time with partisan dead-on-arrival measures. h.r. 10 would re-authorize the scholarships for opportunity and results through the year 2021. ospe 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 will just ask him, do they have the same program in beaver, utah, altamont?e, utah, altanot but it's not spelled with an e.

this provides need-based scholarships for those students in the district of columbia to attend the participating private school of their choice was created in 2004 and last re-authorized in 2011. i'd like to note from the outset that the current school voucher program is authorized through september, 2016. that's almost a full year from now. given the numerous pressing and time-sensitive matters facing this body, i can't help but feel bewilledered as to why we are rushing -- bewildered as to why we are rushing to re-authorize d.c. school vouchers and yet we're not helping 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 re-authorized. 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 -- and i'm quoting them -- should be invested in the existing public education system, both public schools and public charter be to rather than private schools, the end of quote. they go on to describe past

findings on vouchers saying that, and i quote them, 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, i end the quote. despite this very clear letter in what i can only describe as, quote, 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 retains the power to approve laws approved by the city council and vote to impose

laws on d.c. and gets final approval of the d.c.'s budget. 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, 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 examines some of the schools receiving vouchers. among them were a none denominational christian school hat occupies 16 store fronts between a meat shop and an evening wa rmp e boutique. the school consist of two classrooms and they travel two miles down georgia avenue to the recreation center for gym classes. another school follows a model, a philosophy of learning veloped by a bulgarian

psychotherapist that stresses learning through music, stretching and meditation. and the third is described as an unaccredited k-8 school supported by the nation of islam, which occupies the second loor of a former resident east of the 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 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 evaluation 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 bond holders, including switzerland and the cayman islands, china and they would be paid over the obligations to america's troops, veterans, eniors and students as well as medicare recipients as democratic members of the ways and means put it astutely put it, i quote them, 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 ost an estimated $120 -- 120,000 jobs and disrupted public and credit markets so profoundly that the total estimated borrowing to the government during that crisis totalled 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. stewart: i come from a family of educators. my father taught me in fifth grid. my brother and sister are both teachers. my wife is a teacher. one of my sons spent two years in teach for america before studying at graduate school. we would hear stories and personal experiences of children who desperately needed help to get the education they needed so they had any chance, any hope of being successful in life. and finally, i'm 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. now this idea goes back to james

town. 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. and that's what the soar program is about. give our children, 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% of them graduate from high school compared with 58%. 88% of them go on to a two or four-year university. 85% 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? and so i would ask my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. give these kids an opportunity to succeed. that's all we're asking for. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: would you 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: let me respond to the gentleman from utah who spoke of his family's background in education. who is my former wife,

now deceased, taught school for years, first and second grade. and n, who has his ph.d. grandson about the business to get his graduate degree, worked in education, taught sixth grade for a number of years and then recruited school teachers for palm beach county and broward county in florida. the question was why would we not want to educate every child. and the gentleman references 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 jay rosenwall and i

recommend the movie, at the instance of booker t. washington, built schools for black children, 642 of them in the south, where there were none. my mother didn't have the opportunity to go to that school. other people in my town never had the opportunity to get an education and you come here and talk about why would we not want this education. if it's so good, then why isn't it everywhere? and why are you picking on the district of columbia? perhaps who knows that very well, will be able to tell us more than myself with my passion. i'm going to yield three minutes to my very good friend from the district of columbia, a member of the committee on oversight and government reform, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. norton: i thank the

gentleman for yielding and short answer to the gentleman is why we would want to take away vouchers from these children is we don't want to take away vouchers and 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 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 through 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. voted for ncil had

charter schools but there were only two or three fledgeling schools and wasn't going anywhere. today, there are 115 public charter schools in the district and the reason is that with my support, speaker gingrich placed -1996 19 in the 1995 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 friends, is what choice looks like. a new speaker has now stepped forward with a private school voucher program to be authorized

for the third time today although the evaluation that congressman dated definitively shows that the program failed to meet its stated goal to help children improve. math or did not improve 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. that, my friends, is what compromise looks like. could i have another 30 seconds. mr. hastings: i yield an additional minute. ms. norton: that's what compromise looks like. first phenomenal growth of public charter schools which is supported by both republicans and democrats. second, allowing all current students to remain in private voucher schools until graduation . if more compromises if more compromises like this were on the floor the majority would not be divided into multiple faction that is have nothing to show for years of leadership. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina.

ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, it's 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'd like to bring it to the attention of the house that d.c. council woman anita bonds has asked that her name be removed from that letter saying, quote, i'm hopeful that many more of our neediest families have the opportunity to take advantage of the program. end quote. she knows students in public charter and private schools all benefit equally from this legislation. i welcome her support. i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california virginia tech for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentlelady 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 $7.5 trillion run up by this administration alone.

the interest on that debt is one of the fastest growing components in 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 would quickly rise and overwhelm us. the democrats say say they would just raise the debt limit. 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 anti-debt limit is the method by why 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. 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 tight add wave that could sink our budget and our nation along -- tidal wave that could sink our budget and our nation along with it. 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's due. it's an absolute guarantee that the debt of the united states will be honored. most states have various laws to guarantee payment of their debts. a few years ago, ben bernanke praised the state provisions for maintaining confidence in their bonds. it amazes me that we can't all agree on this simple principle, we should guarantee the loans made to the federal government. that's all this bill does. yet we have heard opposition from the other side and they basically make two charges. one is that this pays for foreign governments first while shorting our troops. we just heard tra from the gentleman from florida. what againo fopic nonsense. most of our debt's held by

americans often in pension funds. it protects americans far more than foreign government. they miss the main point. it's the nation's credit that makes it possible to meet all of our other obligations. when you're living off your credit card, as our nation is at the moment, you bert make your minimum payment first or you won't be able to pay all of your other bills. . in his veto threat the president leveled the other charges we heard from the gentleman from florida, this is just an excuse for not paying our other bills. 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's the mere threat of a default on our sovereign debt. this measure takes that threat off the table and it assures 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 an increase in the debt limit sought by the bush administration. he said it was a failure of leadership. well, i never equated senator obama's opposition as anything other than a principleled and well placed concern over the proper management of our finances. it's sad he cannot give the opposition of the same courtesy. 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's all that this bill says. that's all that this bill does.

mr. speaker, let's pass this rule and proceed with consideration of the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. the gentleman from california referred to my comments as xenophobic nonsense. disagree. it kind of gives xenophobia new meaning. i merely pointed out that a large portion of our debt is held by other countries that the legislation that he supports oposes to pay them before 80 million obligations that the treasury department has. mr. speaker, congress has only eight legislative days left to and t the full faith

credit of the united states. if we defeat the previous question, i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule and bring up legislation that would allow, and i'd ask the gentleman from california if he'll 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: without objection. mr. hastings: to discuss our proposal, i'm very pleased to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman, my friend from vermont, a former member of the rules committee, mr. welsh. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for four minutes. mr. welsh: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, let's be clear, raising the debt ceiling has absolutely nothing do at all with increasing government spending. mr. welch: 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. trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the very wealthy that -- unpaid for. but the united states of america in good times and bad, through republican presidents and democratic presidents, and republican-led and democratic-led congresses has always paid its bills. always. we have done it for two reasons. first, it's the right thing to do. a promise made is a promise kept. an obligation incurred is an obligation honored. -- peaker, a nation confident nation keeps its words. 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 who 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. 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's $19 billion that could have been used to fix our highways or invest in scientific research, or it's $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. it it the use of the debt ceiling is 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, anti-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, 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's right. how can it be the party of paul ryan, the chair of our ways and means committee? who said, just refusing to vote for it, the debt ceiling, i don't think that's a strategy. will the debt ceiling be raised? does it have to be raised? yes. reagan was right then. aul 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's 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's a majority that we in the minority have an obligation to do our best to work with. however, it's the majority that is raising questions that have

never been raised before using debt default -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. mr. welch: using debt default and government shutdown is 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 and not letting this government be shut down over a real dispute on planned parenthood funding. but we have got to get past this. the republican majority has to make a decision whether it's going to govern or it's going to empower those who believe that default and shut down are legitimate tactics that resolve legitimate debates we have among us. mr. president, 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. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the

gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 10, but have 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 has 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, and additionally the committee passed an amendment to ensure not only strong aconsidered as read tation -- accreditation standards as well, but equally important is the the gentlewoman from district of columbia i made a personal commitment to her to work on making sure we have proper accountability with regards to this scholarship

program. none of us want to be loose with the american taxpayer dollars. but i want to also stress that this program does not decrease funding for d.c. public schools or charter schools. indeed, it is addition -- an addition to that appropriation, but it really comes down to this, mr. speaker. it is the students that have particular from this program. i -- benefited from this particular program. i was part of a hearing that was held at archbishop carroll high school. when you look into the face of those students that were given an opportunity with the 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's affected their families. giving 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, and it is with great pride that i trongly support h.r. 10. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i would advise and ask you to inform my colleague that i have no further speakers at this time. and i'm prepared to close. so i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: we do have some additional speakers. at this time, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from utah is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i'm pleased to support this rule because of the underlying bill that is there. normally the 10th amendment that power is delegated to the state but the constitution also grants jurisdiction over the district of columbia and when there is a program that is a success, studies concluded that this program significantly, this d.c. opportunity scholarship significantly improves students' chances from graduating from high school. i spent time as a high school teacher and i saw programs being funded and this too shall pass. but the one thing that was never mandated was the concept of freedom, allowing teachers to teach their specialties and allowing parents a choice 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 and a mother said i hate you and hate your bill. because when my 17-year-old doesn't want to go to school, i want to say, you have to go to school, that is the law. i said thanks a lot. that's the attitude i want. when kids are forced to be where they choose not to be they are unsatisfied jerks. but kids knowing they had a choice and they would now attend in a positive attitude, even if it was the same school, and that's what this bill tries to do. we trust choice. we give people choices in food, in our homes and 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 our education doesn't begin with some isolated bureaucrat in washington and doesn't begin with a state or local official but in the home where it is a

parental right and responsibility and both our schools exist to aid in the education of our children and time people in washington stop acting as if the family wishes get in the way. i applaud speaker boehner. he gets it. and he has been an advocate. kids belong to the parents, not to an educator, legislator or special interest group and time we start trusting parents and individuals which is why i support this rule that will bring a good bill to the floor for us to support as well. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i now yield three minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i rise in support of the rule and urge specific passage of

h.r. 10. over 10 years ago, congress took action to give the children of the district a hand up through access through a quality of 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 some d.c. schools were not providing that opportunity. not all schools, but some schools. we know the story of some district of columbia public schools, low graduation rates, high dropout rates, low math and reading scores. they need to do better. and we can all agree all

children in the district deserve a first class education and the lifelong benefits that come from that education, whether public, private, parochial or charter. the bill before us today will re-authorize the d.c. scholarship program for five years. and by the way, the program is a huge success. last year, over 3,600 students submitted applications in the program enrolled nearly 1,500 students. through these scholarships, students have flourished. 88% of high school graduates who were enrolled in the program, in the scholarship program enrolled in two or four-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 continue to work 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. and i urge my colleagues to join in support of the rule and this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. we are now prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, 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. none 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 defeat no on the rule. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. these are crucial bills. they make significant progress on two important issues, addressing our fiscal crisis in a responsible manner and the education of our next generation. we cannot squander the incredible wealth in this country -- the incredible wealth this country has built over decades of hard work. 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 fiscal prudent choices and rock steady resolve in our principles and integrity. there are few debates more contentious than those over spending levels or the leverage points that our system provides

to exert controls. the default prevention act would enable us to fight over the right direction of our country's finances while giving americans and financial markets certainty that they can remain confident. we can and should stay up late at night and have passionate debates in this chamber over how to address mandatory spending but shouldn't allow retired or disabled americans to stay up late for fear their social security checks won't arrive. this is to remove catastrophe as a possibility. by enabling the secretary of the treasury to issue debt necessary to make principle and interest payments on the national debt and pay social security benefits in full. it is the right first step 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 re-authorization act or soar re-authorization 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 re-authorization act continues its successful three-sector approach to improving the lives of low-income students in the district and 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 demon stated higher test scores and significantly higher graduation rates showcasing the importance of students' access to these institutions. these programs are an important example of the need for innovation and experimentation and 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 benefited from the programs included in the soar re-authorization act. and after seeing the hope for the future these students have imagine yes, can't other students receiving their own second choices. 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. 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 on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requestionsed. those in support will raise and remain standing. yeas and nays are ordered. pusht pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution number 481 and ask for its immediate consideration. the clerk: house calendar number 67, house resolution 481, resolved at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may pursuant to clause 2-b may declare the committee in the whole house for consideration of the bill h.r. 1937 to require the secretary of the interior and the secretary of agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of stra teague call importance to the united states' economic and national

security and manufacturing competitiveness. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. debate shall be confined to the bill and not exceeded one hour controlled by the committee on natural resources. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report in the committee of rules accompanying this resolution. such amendment 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 time of the report equally divided between the proponent and opponent shall be subject to amendment. all points of order against such amendments 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 time passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one hour. mr. newhouse: during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for purpose of debate only and i yield the customary 30 minutes to the good the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, on tuesday, just yesterday, the rules committee met and reported house rule -- a rule for house

resolution number 481, providing for the consideration of an important piece of legislation, h.r. 1937, the national strategic and critical minerals production act of 2015. this rule provides for consideration of h.r. 1937 under a structured rule with five amendments made in order, four of which i might point out were offered by the democratic members of this body. therefore, this rule provides for a balanced deliberative and open debate if we focus our remarks on the merits of the national strategic and critical minerals production act and don't go off on unnecessary tang events. . . i would like to congratulate the gentleman from nevada, mr. amodei, for sponsoring this legislation, and also would like to thank chairman rob bishop from utah for his leadership on

this important issue. mr. speaker, this rule will allow for us to consider the national strategic and critical minerals production act, an important bill that will streamline our country's mine permitting processes, to remove unnecessary and burdensome bureaucratic hurdles which can delay some mining activities and projects by up to a decade. 10 years. which is an outrageous amount of time that is indicative of the problem we seek to address here today. the permitting system the federal government currently uses to provide for the extraction of rare earth minerals in the u.s. is outdated, unproductive, and more often than not hinders our ability to extract these critical resources. this red tape has a devastating impact on communities across the country, and in the west

particularly, who rely on the ability to obtain and develop these minerals for economic growth and our nation's security. our country is blessed with a myriad of rare earth minerals that are increasingly used to manufacture high-tech equipment, as well as many other everyday applications and products. many countries around the world are already working to improve their infrastructure, providing the united states with an exceptional opportunity to play a major role in the growing minerals marketplace by supplying foreign countries and businesses, as well as domestic companies with the resources necessary to remain competitive in the international economy. however, a lack of communication between local, state, and federal permitting agencies exists and it creates a bureaucratic backlog of pplications that delays mining

activity, like i said, by approximately seven to 10 years. which have not addressed -- if not addressed will impede the ability of u.s. mineral companies to increase their share of the global marketplace. mr. speaker, due to the onerous government red tape, the frivolous lawsuits that result, and a burdensome permitting process, good-paying jobs in the united states mining industry have moved overseas and put domestic manufacturing jobs at the mercy of our foreign competitors. h.r. 1937 would fix our outdated and uncertain bureaucratic permitting system, which negatively impacts investment in our economy by discouraging domestic companies from extracting and developing these critical minerals. this is especially unfortunate given that we would have only begun to scratch the surface of what we can potentially develop from our abundant natural resources, which have played such a critical role in making the u.s. a leading world economy and industrial power.

our nation has vast energy potential from sources such as coal, oil shale, and natural gas. as well as numerous critical minerals that we should be developing. yet the development of our domestic vinrals resources has -- minerals resources has been obstructed time and time again under this administration which unfortunately faces the political goals of special interests over the welfare and well-being of hardworking americans. mr. speaker, simply put the federal government should promote investments in the u.s. and in american companies by creating a regulatory framework that encourages the safe development of domestic resources. if we are going to address the growing mineral trade imbalance with more u.s. mining jobs moving overseas and higher energy and commodity prices here at home, we must first put a stop to the bureaucratic delays that are the root of the

problem. this legislation does just that, by telling federal agencies to make a decision about whether a project should move forward or not, a simple yes or no, and do it in a timely manner. give people certainty. streamlined and improved this process for other domestic industries, and it is now time to do it for our rare mineral earth sector. which is responsible for some of the highest-paying middle class jobs across the country. it is illogical and irrelevant rational that red tape and delayed permit approvals can lead to 10 years of deliberation over whether or not to approve a mining permit or project. actually, it borders on insanity. mr. speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule allowing for consideration of an important piece of legislation that will provide the u.s. with a unique opportunity to tap into the growing global marketplace for rare earth minerals by

supplying both foreign and domestic companies with the resources they need to remain competitive. mr. speaker, i support the rule's adoption and i urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the so-called strategic and critical minerals production act. my colleague from washington mentioned what's not being discussed here today, and again, to be clear, i feel like we are at groundhog day here. we have eight days until we hit the debt limit and default on our nation's debt. in six days the federal transportation authorization will expire. in 22 legislative days we'll be on the brink of yet another government shutdown. and to a certain extent i feel

like we are fiddling here. here we are talking about an issue which i'm sure deserves its day in the sun. i'll talk about some of the deficiencies in this bill, but we are tackling a recycled bill that in similar form has already passed this body that doesn't address any of these urgent deadline items that we are actually facing. as i travel across my district in colorado, i don't hear a lot of my constituents crying out for access to sand and clay. i do hear them saying don't default on the national debt. do something about the budget. make sure that we provide pre-- prevan hollen niff another government shutdown. all those deadlines are looming while we are fiddling here with other bills that aren't going where and aren't becoming law and already passed this body in similar form. for the fourth time in three congresses, we are going to consider nearly identical

measure that the republicans have brought to the floor, despite the senate's unwillingness to pick it up and the president's opposition. the so-called critical minerals protection act promotes industry interest over america's people health and welfare. the biggest conceptionual problem with it is the definition it gives for strategic and critical minerals. it not only expands mining company's ability to mine for gold and copper, but also materials that one would think by no stretch of common sense are rare like sand and clay. if we include sand from the beach or my kid's sand box as a mineral of critical development, the gravel from my driveway as a mineral of critical development, i'm not sure what we are excluding. i think this applies to almost everything. i'm not sure how we are saying the term critical and strategic

can even apply here when we are talking about sand and gravel and some of the most common natural resources that we have. this bill permits nearly all mining operations to circumvent the important public health and environmental review process that are required under the national environmental policy act. instead of retaining a reasonable threshold to ensure we focus on resources and developing resource that is are actually critical for our -- resources that are actually critical for our defense or economy, this bill expands our definition of strategy and critical effectively -- strategic and critical effectively making it worthless bye saying everything is strategic and critical, you are effectively saying nothing is strategic and critical. that's what this bill does while we are eight days from hitting the debt limit, while we are six days from expiring on the federal transportation. by the way, i have to talk about how these days work. because we are eight days from

the debt limit, six days from the transportation authorization, those aren't real days that americans know. that's because the republicans always send this congress on vacation nearly every week. so it might be six legislative days, i think it's actually 15 or 20 days but congress isn't working for most of us. while these deadlines tick, congress members are actually, we are at home most of the time, because the republican leaders won't let us work. they won't let us come here. they are adjourning the session. that's why when something is 20 days off, we are sounding the alarm bell saying it's six days because they are only letting us work six of those 20 days. i would be happy to show up the other 14, mr. speaker, but you won't be here to gavel us into session. point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker, what would happen if i show up and you're not here to gavel us down into session? the speaker pro tempore: the chair is not going to respond to a hypothetical situation.

mr. polis: maybe we'll just have to try that sometime when we are two or three days from the expiration of our transportation funding from defaulting on our national debt. i'll be happy to come here to an empty chamber. i recall one time, you guys -- mr. speaker, you and the republican majority, accidentally left the cameras on and our democratic whip, steny hoyer, was on the floor demanding why we couldn't bring up a bill. maybe if i'm here and you're not here, mr. speaker, maybe we can get those c-span cameras turned on when we are two or three days from a deadline so the american people understand this funny math. we are somehow 20 days is only six legislative days because you don't let us work the other 14 when hardworking americans have to go to work every day to support their families. this bill's impacts are far-reaching. as drafted it makes the term critical and strategic meaningless. the legislation would increase pollution of our water resources

for states dealing with extreme drought conditions and deadly blazes, the last thing we need is to jeopardize our already scarce sources of water. we can't afford to do any more harm to the quality of our limited water supplies and risking the jobs that are created across the west through outdoor recreation, will he sure, and agriculture. why the house republicans see a need for legislation to further promote mining interest at the expense of public health continues to be must at this filing. he industry already has free rein to extract mineral resources. federal land managers are actually barred from denying hard rock mining propose allege. the bureau of land management and forest service has almost never denied a large mining process. why exempt them further from all environmental review for sand and gravel that aren't even rare elements? this bill fails to update the

antiquated legal framework. it fails to address the reforms needed. it fails to protect our environment. it doesn't change the fact that mining companies currently enjoy, guess what, mr. speaker? what do you think a 3% royalty rate? what do they pay a 2%, 1%? no. they enjoy, zero% royalty rate on federal land. this bill fails to address that. it doesn't change the fact that mining companies have left an estimated half a million mines. that's nearly one for every person in my district, mr. speaker. half a million mines all across the country have been abandoned, most of which are in dire need of klein cleanup or restoration, which -- of clean up or restoration which this bill fails to address. i had the opportunity to introduce a bill with ranking member grijalva earlier this year that would have addressed many of these failures and mining accountability, but it hasn't been brought up before the committee. instead, legislation like this, the so-called strategic and critical mineral productions

act, are rocketed to the floor, even though they passed four times in the last three sessions. instead of confronting real challenges facing our economy, facing american families, we continue to line the pockets of the mining industry that already has one of the fattest profit margins of any while risking the health of the american people and exploiting our natural resources without adequate return and royalties to the taxpayers who own our public lands. i oppose the rule and underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'm prepared to close as well. i yield my southwest balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question ail offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would permanently authorize land and water conservation fund. the land and water conservation

fund supports the protection of public lands and waters such as natural parks, forests, and recreation areas, many conservation organizations from my district and nationally have been in to meet with me on this important topic, i know they have reached out to other members on the hill as well. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with the extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: it is hard to say that name with a straight face when they are defining strategic and critical minerals in a broadway that involves the dirt and sand under our feet, gravel in our driveway. we need to find something like that. rather than actually doing something to protect minerals that are critical for our defense, for our economy, this bill waters that down by

expanding this access to sand and dirt and gravel. maximizing mining companies' profits at the expense of our health, our water, our land and our natural resources. furthermore, the underlying bill would damage our economy, damage our economy by placing the use of the mining industry above the many other important economic uses of our public lands. and i'll give you some examples about hunting, andling, hiking, biking. these are the economic drivers in my district, mr. speaker. and if we didn't have an environmental review process and large gravel pits and silver mines were put in place with wild abandon, we would lose jobs. we would lose most jobs in eagle and summit county which relate

to the tourist industry. the pristine public lands that attract tourists from your district, mr. speaker, come visit, winter park, rocky mountain until park. we would love to have you. you better come quick before this bill becomes laws. when my constituents in colorado this summer, expanding mining access is not one of the issues that they brought up. in fact, they asked me to ensure mining companies are held accountable to greater levels of accountability and transparency. they asked me to develop environmental safeguards to make sure that disasters and tragedies don't occur at abandonned mipes and that our extraction industry can be done in a thoughtful way and make sure it doesn't destroy jobs by conflicting with other higher and better economic uses of some parcels of public land.

we support the safety of critical land. i would be happy to work with my colleague from washington state inputting together a bill that defines rare earth and critical minerals in a commonsense way. not the dirt beneath our feet, the sand in my kid's sand box but in a commonsense way, we look at the needs of industry, our supply, we define it and come up with a targeted access plan, including access to our public lands, that's expedited for national priority items. but that's not what this bill does. we could work together, mr. speaker, and this body needs to work together, not just on this bill, but to avoid defaulting on our national debt, to continue to fund our highways and infrastructure. in fact, to keep government open

. we might only have 11 legislative days to try to keep government open. by the way, i think it is 30 some actual days, mr. speaker. but as we talked about, you won't be here, mr. speaker. if there's a way that i can be here and advance an agenda of keeping government open, i would be happy to. but i'm afraid it requires the speaker to gavel us in. now there are bills that seek to balance the challenges of mining with its impact on surrounding communities. but unfortunately, my colleagues weren't interested in discussing those but discussing a recycled a bill for the fourth time and allow for the mining of public lands, define critical minerals in such a way which means the dirt between your toes and the sand in your kid's sandbox and would likely not be brought up by the senate and dead on

arrival on the president's desk. this is a job-destroying bill that the american people are not even asking congress to take up. it takes a simple concept preserving access to critical resources and con torts it into a divisive job-destroying, health-destroying, commonsense-defying issue that doesn't appear anywhere on the priority list of struggling families across the country. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and vote no on the rule. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. house resolution 481 is a fair rule, allowing for balanced, deliberative and open debate, just as my colleague is asking as well as numerous amendment opportunities. it provides for the

consideration of a bill that is critical to the economic well-being of mining communities across the country, which are reeling from the continual impacts of federal regulation and the bureaucratic permitting process we have in place. this regulatory environment has led to lost jobs and wages in the mining industry. ultimately hurting the middle-class families that many of these rules and regulations claim that they are intended to protect. h.r. 1937 streamlines our country's mine permitting process by removing unnecessary and onerous hurdles, which could lead to decades' long delays for mining activities and projects. the current permitting system for the extraction of rare earth minerals is outdated, unproductive and impedes our ability to extract these critical minerals. our country is blessed with rare earth minerals but this federal red tape has had a devastating

impact on the mining communities in our country whose livelihoods depend on the ability to obtain and develop these resources. we must stop punishing middle-class americans with these heavy-handed and poorly considered regulations that more often than not have unintended consequences and serious negative impacts. mr. speaker, many countries around the world are looking to improve their infrastructure which provides the u.s. with the unique opportunity to tap into this growing global market. due to strong international demand for rare earth minerals, allowing for greater development of domestic resources also creates a unique opportunity to further american trade relationships and decrease our trade deficit. additionally by increasing the available supply of these rare earth minerals, manufacturing companies will be able to more efficiently produce their products which could reduce

consumer costs and open the door to greater innovation. our outdated permitting system negatively impacts investment in our economy and hinders our ability to take on this expanded role in the global marketplace for these mineral resources. the federal government should be promoting investment in thes by creating a regulatory framework that encourages the safe development of domestic resources. if we want to address the growing minerals' trade imbalance as we see more jobs moving overseas and higher energy and commodity pieses here at home, then we must fix these delays which are at the root of the problem. mr. speaker, this rule allows for consideration of an important piece of legislation that will address the burdensome permitting and regulatory hurdles that are harmful to this vital industry. yet while this legislation allows for debater utilization of domestic resources, it

maintains important environmental safeguards designed to ensure the health of our constituents and ecosystems striking an important balance that has been absent far too long. while my colleague from colorado and i may have have a few differences of opinion, i firmly believe this rule and the underlying bill are strong measures that are critically important to our country's future, both for my state as well as his and many, many others in this country. mr. speaker, i support the rule's adoption. i urge my colleagues to support house resolution 481 and the underlying bill. mr. speaker, i yield back. and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. polis: yes.

the speaker pro tempore: yeas and nays are requested. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 rule 20 proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. ordering the previous question on house resolution 480, adoption of house resolution

480, if ordered. ordering the previous question on house resolution 481 and adoption of house resolution 481, if ordered. first electronic vote will be 15 minutes. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five minute votes. the unfinished is house resolution on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 480, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 10, to re-authorize the scholarship for opportunity and results act and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 692 to ensure the payment of interest and principle and debt of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. will record their vote by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 181.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241. the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is -- mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is

expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this on this vote the yeas are 243.

on this vote the yeas are 245. the nays are 182. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 481 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 67. house resolution 481. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1937, to require the secretary

of the interior and secretary of agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to the united states economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 243. the nays are 184. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 244, the nays are 185. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: i ask unanimous consent that the question of adoption a motion to recommit on h.r. 10 or h.r. 692 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, pursuant to the house resolution 480, i call up the bill h.r. 692, the default prevention act, and i ask for its meered consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 201, h.r. 692, a bill to ensure the payment of interest and principal of the debt of

the united states. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 480, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin mr. ryan. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 692, the default prevention act, currently under consideration. and also raise the fact that the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, if you want to guarantee that the united states will never default, then you should vote for this bill. if you want to protect working families from the consequences of default, then you should

vote for this bill. if you want to make sure that seniors get every dime of their social security, then vote for this bill. mr. speaker, this bill does not raise the debt limit but it eliminates the threat of default. the full faith and credit of our country is too important to put at risk. what this bill says is very simple. it says we will never fail to pay our debts. that's just it. that's all it does. it's just paying our debt. we know the consequences of default. we know it would shake the world's confidence in us. we know that it could freeze up credit across this country, and that is why with this bill we are taking default off the table. it's common sense. i want to thank mr. mcclintock for developing this legislation, and i ask my colleagues to support it. and at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield the remaining of the time to ms. jenkins and ask unanimous consent that she be able to control time from

here on. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: and now i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: let me just say at the beginning what needs to be said at the end. this doesn't take default off the table. this is an effort to obscure the reality. in oes not take default off any meaningful way. default is -- >> the house is not in order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the chair would request all

conversations be taken off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: default by any other name is default, and essentially what this bill does is to address part of the problem but leave the rest of it very much outstanding and very much there. this bill plays with fire. this bill essentially, essentially attacks the credit of the united states of america. and the republicans are at it once again. in 2011, they played with it. they played with fire, and america was burned. the stock market plunged. the s&p downgraded for the

first time in history the credit of this country. it lowered private pension balances. it essentially increased the ost of mortgages for people in this country. hat wasn't enough so in 2013 the republicans played with fire and shut down the government. we lost 120,000 jobs. we slowed g.d.p. growth, and there was an increase of $70 million in terms of the cost of financing debt. so what is this really all about? what it's about is paying china and other foreign governments putting essentially

at risk millions of americans. so i just want to refer who's at risk here, who would be subject to default. payments and benefits to 1.4 million active duty troops, their pay is at risk. benefits to almost four million disabled veterans. payment for health care for 5.9 million veterans. education assistance for over a million. loan support for homes for over 500,000 or 600,000 veterans. and then payments to small businesses would be put at risk. payments to physicians under medicare. payments to 30 million-plus kids in terms of their meals. and payments to hundreds of thousands of grantees of n.i.h.

so that's really what this is all about. 9% of the expenditures of this country are going to be safeguarded, mostly for foreign investors, and 30% in terms of social security payments. that means 60% would be at risk. 60% of the 80 million to 100 million payments each month. so essentially what the republicans are doing here is creating a camouflage, but the problem with it is, it's so transparent. it might be as a purpose to try to find a few more votes on the republican side, but when the camouflage is so obvious, i

don't think it will work. the administration has stated its position, and that position is very clear and i want to read from the statement of administration policy. i quote the last paragraph. the president will not tolerate political gamesmanship which caused the nation's credit rating to be downgraded in 2011 and proved harmful to both the united states and the global economy. for this reason, if the president is presented with legislation that would result in the congress choosing to ge fault on our obligations and imperil the full faith and credit of the united states, he would veto it. end of quote. this bill cannot become law so why do it?

why not simple low face up to the need -- simply to face up to the need of the full faith and credit of the united states? i think the answer is, this isn't policy. this is a ploy. and ploys should not be used putting at risk the full faith and credit of the united states and payments at risk for millions and millions of americans. that's really what this is all about. this is irresponsible. this is indefensible. the only possible reason for passing a bill that can't go anywhere is maybe to pick up a few votes here. that is irresponsible in terms of the full faith and credit of this beloved country of ours.

so i strongly urge strong opposition to this. when this came up once before, i think every democrat voted no. every democrat. so we're supposed to be kind of in a new era talking about bipartisanship. we're supposed to be once again thinking maybe we can act together. instead, what we have here is a bill by republicans essentially acting alone. it's a serious mistake. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the author of the legislation, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentlelady. i thank you, mr. speaker. this bill simply guarantees

that the sovereign debt of the united states will be paid in full and on time, period. how could that possibly be controversial? yet, in today's political environment it is. the sovereign debt of the united states is what makes it possible for us to pay all of our other obligations in this era of chronic deficit spending that we're now in. this bill provides an absolute guarantee of that credit. although the constitution explicitly commands that the public debt of the united states is not to be questioned, it provides no practical mechanism to achieve this aim. this bill provides that mechanism. it says that whenever we reach the debt limit, the treasury secretary can continue to borrow to pay interest and principal on the debt. it amazes me that many of our friends on the other side of the aisle support loan guarantees to foreign corporations and to special

interest groups but they're unwilling to guarantee the loans to our own government. the national debt is now larger than the entire economy. it has doubled in the last decade. the interest on that debt is the fastest growing component of the federal budget. it threatens to exceed our entire defense budget in just eight years. if there's ever any doubt over the security and reliability of the debt owed by this government, the rates we pay to service our debt would quickly rise and sink our country in a tidal wave of red ink. now, this is not a substitute for raising the debt limit. we all recognize that in this era of chronic deficit spending under this administration, that's going to have to happen. we have a responsibility to raise the debt limit, but we also have a responsibility to review the policies that are driving that debt. the default prevention act says loudly and clearly to the world, that no matter how much we may differ and quarrel here

in washington, the sovereign debt of this nation is guaranteed and that their loans to it are absolutely safe. we hear the charge this would pay debts owed to foreign governments before paying our own troops. well, actually more than half of our debt is held by americans, often in american pension funds. china holds just 7%, but whether our loans come from china or from charleston, without the nation's credit, we cannot pay our troops or meet all of our other obligations. what nonsense. this maintains the credit that is necessary to pay our other debts. most states guarantee that their sovereign debt, it will be secure and done so for generations. do our friends actually suggest that any of these states have ever used these guarantees as an excuse not to pay their other

bills? on the contrary. by protecting their credit first, they actually support and maintain their ability to pay for all their other obligations. the president contends that is tantamount to a family that a family would make its house payment rather than a car payment. if the family is living on its credit cards as we are as a nation, it had better make the minimum payment on its credit card first or it won't be able to pay the rest of its bills. when the family has to increase its credit limit because it's not spending within its means, it better have a serious conversation about what is driving its debt and what to do about it. principal dispute are going to happen from time to time. just a few years ago, then senator barack obama vigorously opposed a debt limit increase south by the bush administration. when these disrupt, it is

imperative that credit markets are confident that their loans to the united states are secure. providing such a guarantee would prevent a future debt crisis and give congress the calm it needs to make the changes that must be made to bring our debt under control. the voices in opposition to this bill are the same voices that have cheered the most spending and borrowing binge in this nation. it's time to manage our affairs responsibly. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: the gentleman says we're going to raise the debt limit? raise it. get a bill here that raises it. and then this political game

will be totally unnecessary. raise it. where's the bill? i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous extend. o revise and last few days people in thork have been asking me do you think paul ryan is going to become speaker of the house? i says no. they said why, don't you believe he is intelligent, smart, dedicated? i said that's just the problem. paul ryan, i can't find anyone anyone that is more conservative than paul ryan. if he was to become speaker, he would be asking the republicans saying i cannot accept this responsibility unless you respect the united states of

america. paul ryan wouldn't allow us to go into default. he would support a raise in the debt ceiling, we need our jobs, we need education. what's the difference with that? if paul ryan was to get these type of commitments from the republican party, speaker boehner would have never left. so what are we going through today? well, paul ryan knows this isn't going to become law. why? because it doesn't make any sense. it's almost like if you were in a corporation since we used an anology that says we promise you you aren't going to go bankrupt. how are you going to do that? what about the cost of manufacturing? what about the salaries of workers? what billion health benefits and the other things that make america great? well, we didn't say that we have

therotect you for that, but debts and the principal and the debt -- the interest that you have to pay, you protect it. this doesn't make any sense at all. but since it's going to be vetoed, this must mean something to those people that when you say government, they get angry. when you say obama, they see red. when you find cooperation with democrats, they say you are not faithful to the republic. i don't know who these people are. we don't see them and they don't talk this way. but someone that can believe that just paying that foreign and domestic and not taking care of our veterans, not taking care of our military, not taking care of our health concerns, if you really think that these things are just going to be forgotten, these are not the principles

that paul ryan believes in. if this passes and if it's vetoed, can't we try to believe that if you want to have a republican speaker, take this garbage off the table. say you are going to cooperate for our country. this is more important than republicans and democrats. we are talking about the full faith and credit of the united states of america. people don't ask whether you are republican or democrat. they just want to know, are you going to pay your debts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rangel: i thank you for this opportunity, and paul, if you don't want you as speaker, we'll keep you as chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from kansas is ecognized. ms. jenkins: i yield to mr.

rokita two minutes. mr. rokita: i rise in strong support the default prevention act. this commonsense bill makes clear that the united states and those who vote on the floor of this chamber prioritize our debt and our social security payments over our reckless government and otherwise irresponsible spending. with this bill, we take the hysteria out of our spending debate and codify the integrity of our nation's full faith and credit. and i would say, madam speaker, that those that appear to oppose this bill truly at the end of the day need the hysteria that surrounds this issue to not go away simply so political points around this issue can continue to be made. here's a real scary point. not political at all. today, as we stand here, our national debt stands in excess of $18 trillion.

and yet according to the congressional budget office, government receive news were $3.25 trillion for fiscal year 2015. with $3.25 trillion revenue coming in, ladies and gentlemen, we do not have a revenue problem, but with $18 trillion in debt, we have a spending problem. we must get to the root of it and this bill is a responsible step forward. it's a responsible step forward because it takes the politics of this debt and the hysteria off the table so we can see as american people and as a congress, so we can expose the problems and face it and ultimately so we can solve it. and that's what we came to washington to do. i think a little bit, all of us, for me, that's why i came to washington so our tough decisions can be faced, met, resolved and ultimately reduce this debt so that our children and grandchildren in the here

and now and yet to come don't have to be the first and second generations in american history that are left worse off. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from kansas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, our whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have been here for some period of time. i have heard a lot about caucuses. but i would like to see us do what the gentleman from indiana says although i subsidy with him on its conclusion. i would like to see the formation of a responsibility caucus. a caucus that is honest with the american people, that doesn't pretend that this debt limit vote is a real vote. it's a real vote when you cut revenues by hundreds of billions

of dollars and don't pay for it. and if you think that that does not up the debt, somehow pays for it, you haven't been around for the last 35 years watching. the responsibility caucus would say to the american people, if we bought it, we're going to pay for it. whether it was social security, medicare, an aircraft carrier, roads and bridges, whatever, we'll pay for it. one of the first things republican friends did was they negated pay-for. and they certainly wouldn't have t apply to tax cuts. almost every responsible economist i have talked to says there is no way you can do this without effectively having default. because if you prioritize debts, by definition, what you're

saying is, there are some debts we will not pay. and as soon as you say that, you have defaulted. you may not default to a bond owner, but you have defaulted on an obligation of the most credit-worth nation on earth, the united states of america. and this is a game. it is an irresponsible game. it is a game unworth of responsible representatives -- unworth of responsible representatives. of course we are going to pay our debts. we're america. and when we say we are going to pay our debts, it means we will pay our debts. in order to do that, you need to up the debt limit. if you don't want it to go higher, stop buying things. both. for things or do

i urge my colleagues to reject this irresponsible charade that is a pretense of fiscal responsibility, not a reality. this is not worthy of this congress or the american people. it is clear that this house is a deeply divided house and dysfunctional house for a number of months now, indeed for a number of years. and i understand that there are some people who demand legislation like this that won't go anywhere and really won't do anything and it will put the credit of the united states at further risk. let us reject this charade. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized.

ms. jenkins: i come today to the house as a supporter of the default prevention act. right now our nation stands at over $18 trillion in debt. a number simply too large to comprehend. we have an obligation to the american people to put our economy on a sustainable path forward. however, while house republicans will continue to act to reduce our national debt and restore fiscal responsibility to the federal government, we cannot put the full faith and credit of the united states government at risk. the default prevention act ensures that we will continue to pay our existing debt obligations providing the economic security and certainty that our economy needs. this legislation does not allow for an increase in the debt limit. it simply allows us to satisfy our existing debt obligations and avoid default even if we reach the debt ceiling. this bill protects social security beneficiaries and

americans with disabilities by ensuring their benefits will be continued to be paid on time. hard-working americans deserve to have their benefits protected and this bill does that. and this protects the credit and integrity and i urge members of the house to support it. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas reserves. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, our caucus chair, mr. becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding. 1.4 million troops, four million disabled veterans, more than 30 million children who participate on a daily basis on school lunch programs and small businesses all over the country, these are some of the americans who will pay the price if republicans refuse to authorize our

government to pay all its bills. there are only eight legislative days for congress to avoid defaulting on paying america's financial bills. yet our house republican colleagues show no signs of putting serious business first and trying to work with their democratic colleagues to pay our nation's bills on time and in full. this bill isn't a solution, it's a sham. first it instruggets our government to pay foreign creditors ahead of paying our troops or our veterans who have served our country and earned their benefits. second our republican colleagues propose under this bill to borrow new money to pay for previously borrowed money and to say that the previously borrowed money won't count on the books. borrowing money off the books to cover debt sounds like a ponzi scheme. this is simply default by another name, bringing our

economy closer to the brink. . maybe my colleagues have forgotten 2011. the stock market plunged and the s&p downgrade our credit rating. in 2013, our republican colleagues proposed default and the government shutdown that followed cost us 120,000 jobs and $24 billion in slow g.d.p. growth. just as the economy was taking hold. our secretary, secretary lew, the secretary of the treasury, said in a letter last week, there's no way to predict the irreparable damage that default would have on global financial markets and the american people. madam speaker, you wouldn't run your small business on constantly the edge of default so why would republicans try to run our -- the largest economy in the world this way? we need to move forward. we have eight days.

let us defeat this bill and get our real work done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is ecognized. >> i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina. mr. sanford: my colleague from maryland made the comment of the responsibility caucus, he would like to see more of that. what i would submit a ta -- is that ultimately what my colleague from california's bill is all about is indeed just that. if you think about it, we really are living in an age of default. in a thing called generational accounting, they've said the imputed cost for a child born in america today is about 80%. 80% is not all that far from a thing called slavery if you have

to be indentured to the federal government for the preponderance of your life and your life's work. so what this is ultimately about is defusing that bomb. t's recognizing whatters kin bowles. ers kin bowles was former choof of staff to president clinton he looked -- he ran a commission that looked at the way the federal government spent money. he said what we have before us is the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man and that it is but 10 years off. roughly 10 years off. and so as we have a legitimate debate and we will have a legitimate debate between republicans and democrats and independents and all of us as americans in where we go next, what this does is it defuses that bomb of a train wreck with regard to international and national credit markets as we have the debate. that's a very good thing system of this bill is about drawing a line as we have deadlines that

come and go with this debate. it is about a tug of war that's taking place. but it's about saying let's step back and not risk credit markets and what might happen next on that front. it's secondly about simple priorities. in a family's budget, they differentiate between the mortgage fwudget and the movie budget. not all government expenditure is equal. there are a whole host of programs in the federal government that make a lot of sense and some that frankly don't. some that add a lot of value, some that add a little value. as we go through those deliberations, let's back up and protect the financial credit worthiness of the united states government is ultimately a real step of responsibility and with that, i commend my colleague from california for offering this bill, i thank him for his work to defuse a ticking time bomb in the debate that will take place, but a ticking time bomb that will go on nonetheless with regard to what happens next

with regard to national debt. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from kansas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. thompson of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: here we go again, we're only weeks from defaulting on our debt and this bill does nothing to deal with that. the bill before us is essential i a plan for defaulting on our obligations. as my friend, the gentleman, the republican gentleman from louisiana said, all this does is prioritize our debt. if you're prioritizing your debt by definition you're defaulting. you're not paying your bills. this would prioritize our repayment, putting our veterans, small businesses, and our first responders behind foreign governments in regard to receiving the payment that's due to them.

we have to pay our bills. we cannot go down this road again. we've seen this movie before and it's not going to change. the last time we came close to defaulting on our debt, the results were terrible. in one month, job growth dropped by more than 130,000 jobs. the s&p 500 tanked by nearly 20%. and our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in history. no one knows for sure what the full extent of the damage to the economy would be if we default on our debt. but as chairman ryan said earlier, we know that it would, quote, freeze up our economy. higher interest rates for mortgages on auto loans, student loans, and credit cards. higher interest rates and less access to business loans. needed to finance payrolls, building inventories or invest in equipment and construction. family retirement savings in

401k's dropping as the stock market tanks. almost four million veterans not receiving disability payment and doctors and medical providers and hospitals not getting their pay. the debt limit isn't something to play around with. we simply need to pay our bills. vote a resounding no on this bill and let's pay our bills. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlelady from kansas is ecognized. ms. jenkins: i would like to yield to our whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: the default prevention act takes off the table the ability for any president to use the debt ceiling as an opportunity to

threaten default on the credit of the united states of america. if you think about this, we're talking about whether or not the united states is going to pay our bills. this should be something that the president, any president, should understand is a base exresponsibility of their duty in office. whether or not congress can come to an agreement with the president on the debt ceiling, which by the way, should be something the speaker, the majority leader and the president are directly engaged in. the fact that the president walked away from talks on negotiations on the debt ceiling tells you that he's not taking this in the serious way he should but in fact it also proves that the president wants to use the debt ceiling to threaten default of the united states. that's irresponsible of any president. no president should have the option of defaulting or threatening default and this bill takes default off the table as an option. now why would the president be opposed to that? i think it answers itself. madam speaker.

buzz the president wants to threaten default and have that as a political weapon. to try to scare the markets. to try to scare our seniors who, by the way, are the largest hold over debt. seniors shouldn't have to worry about whether that debt will be paid. any creditor shouldn't have to worry if the united states is going to borrow money. we should focus on getting to a balanced budget which this president is opposed to. but once we get to a balanced budget we should focus on -- focus on making sure we pay the debts that are incurred. the fact that the president wants to threaten default is an option that shouldn't be available. this makes the focus real clear, the united states is going to live within its obligations, uphold its oigations and go and focus on attacking the real root problems that got us to this debt in the first place. i urge all my colleagues to vote for this piece of legislation. let's send it over to the senate where they should pass it on to the president. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from kansas

reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield to the gentlelady from texas for unanimous consent. ms. jackson lee: i rise to oppose h.r. 692 for we should pay our debts, this bill is called the pay china first act. i ask unanimous consent that my statement may be placed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another very distinguished member of our committee, mr. blumenauer of the great state of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i'm listening to my friend from louisiana rewrite history. it's not the president that is threatening to default on the national debt. s the republican congress that is refusing to do what was granted to every president in the past, republican or democrat, deal with raising the debt ceiling which is after all money we've already spent. money that they approved. they've been in charge for the last five years.

the notion somehow that we candice ting wish the semantics of this proposal, distinguishes between sovereign debt and the rest of the 80 million transactions that the treasury makes every day is lunacy. if you disagree with our protections to seniors, veterans, the military, medicare, medicaid, f.b.i., food safety, cut them. but you don't. you nibble away at them. you've never offered a balanced budget when you've been in charge. we had balanced budgets when president clinton was president. thank you very much. unless you assure everyone, nobody is protected. the notion somehow that the president walked away from the negotiations, simpson-bowles, where was paul ryan. i like paul ryan, paul ryan refused to embrace the simpson

bowles proposal. they cannot pass their vision, they want to blame the president and the american people. i would respectfully suggest that we ought to reject this fig leaf, get down to business, raise the debt ceiling as we have done repeatedly in the past for presidents whether they are republicans or democrats, get past the rhetoric, and then deal with structural issues going forward. let's rebuild and renew america. let's raise the gas tax so we can deal with our crumbling infrastructure. something that ronald reagan did mr. levin: i yield the gentleman 3 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: something ronald reagan did in 1982 when we faced a deficit in the highway trust fund then. there are simple, commonsense solutions that by the way are

supported by the u.s. chamber and afl-cio. truckers and triple-a. business, government, to be able to get the country moving again, repair crumbling infrastructure, not add to the deficit. one simple little step, something we could do, not deal with goofy legislation like is offered today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: we're asked, why don't you just raise the tet limit? let me make this very clear. as long as we spend more than we take in, we have a responsibility to raise the debt limit. republicans acknowledge that responsibility. democrats acknowledge that responsibility. but with that responsibility

comes a concomitant duty to review the policies that are driving that debt. the republicans acknowledge this responsibility, the democrats do not and that is the fine point of the matter. that's a policy debate. and it's controversial. but that controversy should not threaten to increase the cost of our borrowing. given the side -- the size of the debt we're carrying, and this administration has nearly doubled it by its policies, even a small increase in interest rates could mean a catastrophic increase in interest payments. and those increased interest payments in the tens, possibly hundreds of billions of dollars, would come at the cost of every other program that the democrats cherish. we keep hearing about the s&p downgrade in our credit rating in 2011. let me remind them that for months prior to that downgrade,

s&p demanded we reduce our 10-year projected deficit by at least $4 trillion or they would downgrade our sovereign debt. we ultimately only reduced it by $1.2 trillion because of the voices that we now hear raised against this bill and s&p followed through on that threat. to pay eat not interest and principal on our debt is the biggest threat to our credit. that is precisely the threat this bill takes off the table by guaranteeing our sovereign debt. failure to pay our other bills would be a very bad thing and much to be avoided. there's no dispute in that. but as long as the debt limit has to be increased, there's going to be controversy. and that controversy, whether during democratic or republican congresses or republican or democratic administrations must not be allowed to provoke an

increase in borrowing costs because we have frightened credit markets. this is not a threat to default, it is a promise not to default on the sovereign debt that we use to fund everything else that we do. my friends on the left make no distinction between sovereign debt and our other obligations. that may explain some of the reason we are in the mess that we're in. the fact that our sovereign debt is what makes it possible to pay for our other obligations as long as we continue to spend beyond our means. this measure guarantees the sovereign debt. the policies advocated by the opponents of this motion are precisely the policies that have caused our country to wander now through seven years down a dark road of debt, doubt and despair and economic ma lace. it is time for a new morning in america and that begins with

guaranteeing the sovereign debt of this nation. i ask for your support for this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: how much time is remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 10 minutes remaining. and the gentlelady from kansas has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes, mr. kind of wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. kind: madam speaker, this unquestionably is one of the most dangerous bills we will be considering in this session of congress because this gives this body permission for the very first time to default on our financial obligations. they claim they are splitting the baby here by paying bond holders only. one of the largest bond holders we have is china. so it's a pay china first bill. the financial markets, the

investors and credit rating agencies will view this for what it is, a default is a default is a default. and a great nation like the united states, should pay our bills. we should our pay our bills. no one can stand here or sit here today with complete certainty and tell us what the market reaction would be if we start defaulting. and that's really the point. why would we even take that chance? why would we take a chance of a downgrade in credit, an increase in interest rates, which would impact everyone from small businesses to families to farmers, drive up the borrowing costs which would act as a break on economic activity and the job growth we have right now because we have never done this before. and that's the danger that this legislation sets us up. if my friends on the other side are concerned about debt and overspending, then perhaps they out not have supported legislation this year that would increase our national debt by

$1.5 trillion over the next 10 years because you refused to pay for the tax cuts or spending increases that was in that legislation through offsets in the budget. that may come as news, but the congressional budget office has scored $1.5 trillion of new debt based on legislation you supported. repealing s.g.r., permanent expensing, get rid of the estate tax. t adds up to $1.5. if there is so much concern of what it is doing, maybe we ought to look at ourselves first and the action that is being taken on this house floor. we should not go down this path and stop creating the uncertainty and dysfunction coming out of washington. i encourage my colleagues to reject this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan

reserves and the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i would like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, vice chair of our caucus, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the pay china first act. we should call it, in my opinion, put america last act, because that's exactly what this bill. this bill would codify a new low and ensure american taxpayers are forced to pay china and other regimes as well as other banks first. that means we pay china before we pay veterans, before we pay for medicare to cover our seniors and pay our enlisted troops bravely serving overseas.

it means we are going to pay these ys before we pay guys. going to pay these guys before we pay these guys. even chairman ryan in a memo to the house republican colleagues acknowledges that in fact, china and other foreign debt holders will be paid before medicare, before elderly receive their checks and before our troops receive their salaries. this whole bill is a sign of misplaced priorities. there are countless issues that americans have called on us to address that we need to tackle to ensure this country remains healthy and strong. yet this is a bill the republicans have chosen to bring to the floor. this is a bill that you have chosen to bring to the floor. at least now we know this

congress is not serious about paying our nation's bills. under this bill, we resort to the u.s. having to file for bankruptcy. filing for bankruptcy and walking away from debt obligations may work for donald trump, but it doesn't work for middle-class americans. average americans who work hard to pay their bills and live up to financial obligations and that includes american veterans and seniors, the republicans would have waiting in line for v.a. benefits. i cannot support a measure that puts china above our seniors and service members and if you ask the american people about who should be paid first -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is granted an additional minute. mr. crowley: you ask the american people who should be aid first, these guys or these guys? i suggest they would agree with us. these guys should get paid

first. oppose this china first bill act and keep america first. let me add this, did you ever hear of diamond ditch? this is the biggest diamond ditch. some of my friends wanted to go to a restaurant and eat as much as they could and run out before they paid their bill and i would never let them do that. i felt it was immoral. that's exactly we are suggesting we do today. who got stuck paying for that bill? the waitress. who is the waitress? the american people. even suggesting for a moment that we may not pay our debt and we may default sends the wrong message to america and to the world. defeat this measure. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves.

mr. levin: i guess i don't. you still reserving? i yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: i rise in strong opposition to the pay china first act and i'm truly shocked that the republican leadership is advancing a bill that approves america defaulting on its debt. this is a dangerous action that jeopardizes the full faith and credit of our nation. it also jeopardizes the well-being of millions of our most vulnerable citizens. i cannot support a bill that would tell my constituents that repaying a debt to foreign countries is more important than paying their salaries for military service or disability benefit or providing them student loans. how can i tell small businesses in illinois that repaying our debt to a foreign government is

more important than paying them for providing goods and services to our government. how can i tell illinois doctors and hospitals that we can pay china for lending us money, but we cannot pay them for taking care of our elderly. the council of economic advisers estimated that the 2013 debt limit standoff and shutdown cost us 120,000 jobs and the g.a.o. estimated that it resulted in $70 million in increased borrowing costs on securities issued during the last crisis. the 2013 debt limit fiasco already damaged our economic recovery. yet, the republican leadership insists yet again on a path to harm our national economy and well-being simply for political posturing. i urge my colleagues to oppose this shameful bill, but say that debt to foreign countries is more important than protecting

our citizens. we should protect our economy, pass a clean bill to raise our debt ceiling. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair will reseff a message. the messenger: a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i know this great hall has become a national gallery for piperbole. pay china first? what zen phobic nonsense.

they hold 7% of our debt. most of our debt is owed to americans much in pension funds and debts to the social security pensioners. but if we don't maintain our credit we can't meet any of our other obligations including our troops in the field and if there is a suggestion that our soverage debt is not absolutely secure, we could see a spike in interest costs that will take money away from the very programs that the democrats say they are trying to defend. that's the reality of it. this is a question over whether we should guarantee the sovereign debt of the united states. and i would ask again, why is it and how is it that my friends on the democratic side of the aisle can get wildly enthusiastic about taxpayers being forced to guarantee loans to foreign corporations, foreign governments or domestic special

interests and yet not be willing to guarantee the full faith and credit of the united states simply by allowing the treasury secretary to continue to borrow to meet our interest and principal payments if we should ever reach a point where the debt limit has been reached? it is the debate over the debt limit that tends to roil markets. we are going to meet our obligation, but the debate that is required to review the policies that are droifing our debt ro linch s those markets and this calms this debate and their loans are secure. this keeps our interest costs down and guarantees the credit of the united states that is necessary to meet all of our other obligations. and with that, i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas reserves? ms. jenkins: with no further speakers, i'm prepared to close.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is prepared to close. mr. levin: i'll close. you know this is an amazing debate. the gentleman from california talks about guaranteeing. you guarantee payments to foreign debt holders. you won't guarantee payments to our veterans, to kids with school lunches. you won't guarantee payments to medical are doing research. you won't guarantee that. nd so, here's the problem. you're proceeding on a very partisan basis, on a bill that's going nowhere. you say we need to raise the debt ceiling?

we will. and we're going to do it long before there's any consideration of the details about which you speak. you talk about the need to control spending. we are going to pass a debt ceiling and the disturbing thing is you come here on a partisan when there is a crying need for bipartisanship and the only way the debt ceiling can be raised is bipartisan. and you come here today strictly partisan. hat's a bad omen because we have the debt ceiling, and we have the medicare premium issue that looms in a fedes, we have a highway bill that looms in a fedes, and the only -- in a few

days and the only way they'll be resolved is a bipartisan way. and you come here with a bill that won't get a single democrat vote and you know it. yet your leadership sanctions you to do this. what does that mean for the future? it's deeply troubling. this is demagoguery. it's an effort maybe to gain a few more republican votes, but this is too important for that. it's not policy, as i said before, it's a ploy. and when we come to issues like this, it should be beyond that kind of gamesmanship. so in this sense, it's kind of sad you're doing this. it raises questions as to where your leadership is going to take this institution in the future when already on your side the

public has such deep disbelief in what you're doing. so it's too late to ask you to hold back. i urge that your lead -- i urged that to your leadership some time ago. i guess we're going to go forward, it's a freightful mistake. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind members to direct comments to the chair. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: congress still has a great deal of work to do to rein in spending but while conversations to reduce federal spending continue eric we must also continue to pay down our existing debt. the default prevention act before us today provides a responsible way to deal with our debt cry eas and protect the full faith and credit of the united states. as we all know if the u.s. defaulted on a debt payment, it would do serious harm to the economy and to the hardworking americans who make this country great. this bill ensures that even if

the debt limit is reached, the u.s. treasury would not default on our existing obligations to pay down the debt. again, this legislation does not increase the debt limit. instead it prevents treasury from issuing new debt to pay for any new spending unless congress passes a law to increase the debt limit. a conversation for another day. this bill guaranteeing our debt makes it possible to pay all the bills that the minority claims to want paid. this bill takes the important step of ensuring that social security benefits are paid in full and on time. this legislation is a commonsense measure that will protect our nation's credit and integrity and once again, i strongly urge my colleagues to support it. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the plans of her time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution

480, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to ensure the payment of interest and principle of -- principal of the debt of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. levin: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. levin: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this e-- on this question will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 3116 with the senate amendment thereto and concur in the senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill and the senate amendment. the clerk: h.r. 3116, an act to extend by 15 years the authority of the secretary of commerce to conduct the quarterly financial report program, senate amendment. at the appropriate place insert the following. section 3, report on security -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the reading is dispensed with. is there objection to the original request of the gentleman from utah. without objection the senate amendment is agreed to and the motion to reconsider -- for what

purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter from john thomson, director of the census bureau to chairman mccal, myself and others, that they will comply with the law and will continue to work with the secretary of homeland security and others to secure the bureau's network. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 10. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 480 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 10. the chair appoints the gentleman

from north carolina, mr. holding, to preside over the ommittee on the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 10, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize the scholar ships for opportunity and results act and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time they have gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i rise today in support of h.r. 10, the

scholarships for opportunities and results, or soar, re-authorization act. the soar re-authorization act continues the three-sector approach to registration in the district of columbia. it gives equal funding to d.c. public school, d.c. public charter schools and the opportunity scholarship program often referred to as the o.s.p. the o.s.p. gives scholarships to children in low-income families to attend a private school so that those children can experience a quality education. the average o.s.p. family makes less than $22,000 per year. these scholarships allow families to place their children in learning-rich environments. district of columbia public schools rank at the top in spending per student but are near the bottom in academic performance. the opportunity scholarship program gives these students the education they deserve so they can pursue the american dream. mr. chairman, h.r. 10 works not only to provide scholarships to students who need them most but also to improve the current state of public school and

public charter school education. this bill authorizes equal funding for d.c. public schools and for d.c. public charter schools in addition to the opportunity scholarships. my friends across the aisle claim that the soar act takes money away from public education. however, that is quite the opposite. the soar act increases funding for public education in the district of columbia. in fact, since the three-sector approach has been in effect, d.c. public schools and d.c. public charter schools have received a combined $435 million in federal funding for school improvement. mr. chairman, the district of columbia schools would not have received these funds had it not been for the o.s.p. and this three-sector approach. now we're debating re-authorizing this approach and giving $20 million annually to each sector for five years. $300 million across five years for d.c. education. it's hard to imagine how anyone who advocates for public education would oppose such an

approach that has poured million into the d.c. public education system, particularly since the o.s.p. is getting a great return on its investment and is producing results. the o.s.p. produces $2.62 in benefits for every $1 spent on the program, according to a study conducted by one of the program's evalue yoit -- evaluators. you'd be hard-pressed to find another government program with this kind of result and bang for your buck. that's 162% return on investment and investment is not taking one dime from public education. mr. chairman, it's good stuff. we talk about how to keep this program going. it's really affecting real people and real lives. we talk about the individual students and their families but it's also borne out in the statistics. the opportunity scholarship students are averaging a 90% graduation rate. 90%. compared to d.c. public schools which is roughly less than 60%.

graduation rates in 2013 and 2014. further, some 88% of the opportunity scholarship participants enroll in college. not only are they graduating high school at record levels above and beyond what's happening in public schools, but they're also going on to higher education. these children, though, are more than a graduation statistic. their individual lives have been forever changed because of the o.s.p. i want to remind our colleagues about joseph kelly's son, rashaun williams. he had fallen behind in every single subject. his father had to go to the courts and get the courts involved to ensure his school was requiring its requirement -- was following its requirements pursuant to his individual education plan. he was able to get rashaun a scholarship through the opportunity scholarship program and says, quote, i truly shudder

to think where my son would be today without it. o.s.p. is changing outcomes for the least advantaged. the program places kids in safer, high-quality schools that allow them to receive a good education and brings funding to all sectors of education in doc improve education opportunities for all. mr. chairman, it's important to note that the bill requires all participating opportunity scholarship schools to be accredited. the accreditation standards give the taxpayer and more importantly opportunity scholarship families assurances that district students are receiving the education they deserve. the opportunity scholarship currently limits entrants based on control group for an evaluation survey. it remove this is requirement in a new study to track results of the opportunity scholarship. it means increased access to the program and more families can be afforded quality education for their children. mr. chairman, we had the opportunity to debate this bill in the oversight committee and i appreciate the perfect is heard

from both sides. we had a good, productive field hearing. i want to thank our friend, our colleague, the speaker of the house, mr. john boehner of ohio. for authoring this legislation. he has poured his heart and soul out trying to do what he can do to help these young children. and it's had a positive effect on so many lives and in future generations. it's something we can all be proud about. he's worked tirelessly to bring opportunity to students within the district of columbia and he'll be remembered by this body for his efforts to bring equal -- to bring a quality education to all. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to give students in the district of columbia the opportunity for a college education by re-authorizing a program that actually works and produces results. it affects real lives. it's called the scholarships for opportunity and results act. i urge my colleagues to support it and with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves his time. -- the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves his time.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from the district of columbia, ms. -- the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. ms. norton: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i did not expect to be on the floor managing this bill. ironically i was to host a meeting for members and staff on the constitutionality of the district of columbia statehood bill where i was going to show a 7-minute h.b.o. "last week tonight" clip from john olver that lampoons the congress for denying district residents their voting rights, budget and legislative autonomy and statehood. instead, here i am on the floor in a virtual reality show, not speaking about the rights of self-governmentance but fighting this latest attempt by the republican congress to impose its ideology on d.c. residents. i ask that the d.c. council's

letter opposing this bill be included in the record. the chair: that is covered under general leave. ms. norton: yet, mr. speaker, i have sought a compromise that should be acceptable to republicans as it is to president obama. we support, and i repeat this, we support allowing our current d.c. voucher students to remain in the program until graduation. that ensures d.c. would have voucher students for many years to come. . that is the kind of sensible compromise that congress must get back to or be content with the label least productive congress as had it -- as it has come to be known each year under this majority. instead this bill goes beyond that compromise, the one we have offered, by seeking to

dmit new students as well. we are here so that speaker john boehner has a cap stone to his own political career. the d.c. voucher program is his pet project. not d.c.'s. he has introduced only two bills this congress, a bill on the iran nuclear agreement, and this bill. even if members do not respect d.c.'s right to self-government, they should at least care whether the program improves achievement which is the stated reason for vouchers in the first place. far from helping students however, the program has demonstrably failed. according to the congressionally mandated evaluation of the program's effectiveness, this program, these vouchers, have failed to

improve academic achievement as measured by objective math and reading testing scores. most important, the program has not had, quote, significant impacts, that's also from the congressionally mandated evaluation, has not had significant impacts on the achievement of students who the program was designed to most benefit. those who previously attended low-performing public schools. the majority cites improved high school graduation rates. however, the evaluation did not examine dropout rates or the rigor of the school's curriculum or graduation requirements. the majority also cites high college attendance rates. however, the evaluation did not

conclude that the program improved college attendance rates. even if the program were successful, mr. speaker, it would still not be needed at least in the district of columbia, which has perhaps the most robust public school choice programs in the country. almost 50% of our public school students attend charter schools , which the national alliance for public charter schools ranked as the strongest in the nation. in addition, 75% of public school students this the grict -- in the district attend out of boundary schools. what d.c. has developed amounts to a choice, a model for choice

, in education. moreover, the d.c. public schools have made some of the most impressive improvements in the country by any measure, spurred by competition from the rapidly growing d.c. charter schools, not from the small number of voucher schools. in fact, a 2013 assessment of d.c. public schools indicated that the district had the greatest improvement of any urban school district in the nation. d.c. charter schools have even higher educational achievement and atin -- and attainment than d.c. public schools. d.c. charter schools outperform d.c. public schools across traditionally disadvantaged groups, including african-americans and low-income students. and have a higher percentage of

ch students, precisely the students the voucher program was extensively designed to serve. greater confidence in d.c. public schools is also clear. d.c. public school enrollment has increased for seven consecutive years, right alongside this very large number of charter schools. if congress wants to support d.c. students, we ask that you support our home rule public choice, not impose yours. any new funding for education in the district should reinforce the hard work of our city, our parents and our residents who have shown the nation how to build a fully accountable public school choice program. d.c. residents, not

unaccountable members of congress, know best what our children need and how to govern our own affairs. during this debate, mr. speaker, we will consider an amendment i have offered to restore the scientific integrity of the program's evaluation, the very evaluation -- just like the evaluation congress has always mandated. and to crack down on so-called voucher mills. given that the speaker's bill will surely pass, i want to work with members who support vouchers to ensure had that our voucher students attend high -- to ensure that our voucher students attend high quality schools. like our accredited catholic ial schools, not

fly -- parochial schools, not fly by night often storefront schools in low-income neighborhoods that were open only after the voucher program was created because of the access to unrestricted federal funds. i appreciate that the majority indicated in committee and on the floor that they also want to prevent voucher mills. i look forward to continuing to work with them as this bill moves forward to protect our families from voucher mills. under the home rule act of 1973, congress gave the district authority to establish its own education system. and unlike some other local jurisdictions, d.c. has never created a voucher program. instead, like many d.c. bills in congress, this bill seeks to impose a program on the district that does not have national support. just think of it.

ly three months ago both house and senate defeated republican national private school voucher amendments on the floor. members reject private school vouchers for their own constituents but want to impose them on mine. no wonder, since 1970 every single referendum to establish state-funded vouchers or tuition tax credits has failed and by large margins. now the majority wants to do to the district what it would not dare do at home, given the recent vote to deny voucher funding on a national level. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentlelady from the district of columbia reserves her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for four minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for this opportunity. i come to the floor today, after looking to the eyes of the kids, students, their parents, eyes filled with hope and opportunity, and success. i come to the floor today to add my support for h.r. 10, the soar re-authorization act. because it works. this legislation will ensure the continuation of the successful d.c. opportunity scholarship program which was established by congress in 2004 to provide eligible low-income families in the district of columbia with the opportunity to attend the school of their choice. innovative programs like the

d.c. opportunity scholarship program are necessary to fix our broken educational system and prepare our children for the 21st century work force, and i'confounded that any of my colleagues would oppose a program that provides students with an opportunity for a better education, especially one that has been an unqualified success. on average students in the opportunity scholar shm program have a graduation -- scholarship program have a graduation rate of 90%, well above the national average. as well as d.c.'s overall graduation rate of 58%. these students continue to succeed in their pursuit of higher education. with 88% of the graduates going on to attend a two or four-year college or university. while the benefits to d.c. children are clear, the program also plays an important role in empowering parents to make the best choice for their kids and

engaging them in their education and academic progress. a recent survey of parents found that 85% of parents are happy with their child's current opportunity scholar shm program school -- scholarship program school. h.r. 10 has garnered the support from a wide array of stakeholders. just yesterday in an op ed entitled "a misguided attack on d.c.'s needy students," "the washington post" editorial board defended the soar act and wrote in support of re-authorizing the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. noting that over 6,100 children have benefited from the program while thousands more are on waiting lists. "the washington post" also notes that nearly 75% of d.c. residents support the program, which has provided more than $600 million in funding for traditional public schools, charter public schools and the voucher program. it's important to note, mr.

speaker, that this bill does not take any funding away from d.c. public schools. in fact, the legislation authorizes equal funding to public schools, charter schools and scholarships. with an average family income of less than $22,000 for participating families, this program really is a life line for low-income d.c. families, offering students up to $12,572 to pay for tuition, fees and transportation. why, mr. speaker, would any of us want to prohibit these students and families from opportunity and success? this is a hand-up to the american dream. ensuring our children have access to the best possible education should not be a partisan issue. and receiving a quality education should not be limited to people of means. i urge my colleagues to continue supporting this program and pass h.r. 10. it's the right thing to do.

let's do it for the kids. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time michigan -- the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from utah. reserves his time. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. i simply want to say once again that no child currently enrolled in the program under the compromise that i have offered would be stricken from the program, but could stay until graduation. it is new students that we object to, given the evaluation that showed that the program had not met its intent, which was to improve reading and math scores. by contrast, we have had such improvement in reading and math scores both in the d.c. public schools and the d.c. charter schools. also, mr. speaker, there is no

waiting list for vouchers in the district of columbia. however, there are long waiting lists for our charter schools and now even for some public schools. i'm pleased to offer three minutes to my good friend from new jersey, mrs. watson coleman. the chair: the gentlelady from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mrs. watson coleman: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to thank the gentlelady from d.c. it is extremely unfortunate that we are here yet again debating legislation that would interfere with the ability of d.c. residents to make decisions for themselves. so far this congress, the house has attempted to block laws that would protect district's women's reproductive rights and reform washington's drug laws. now we're asked to continue a failed private school voucher program. a program that a majority of the d.c. council opposes and on which they are not even

consulted. a program that d.c.'s own long time congresswoman opposes. i am shocked at the arrogance of this body to set aside the will of the citizens of the district of columbia so fleetingly. it is a disgraceful -- it is disgraceful that in this building a symbol of our democracy, we impose such policies on a city that does not even get a vote on these decisions. additionally, i oppose this bill because it weakens d.c. public school systems. instead of taking public dollars to outsource our children's education to private schools, we should be focusing on truly re-authorizing the elementary and secondary education act. we need an updated e.s.e.a. that strengthens public -- esea that strengthens public schools for our children and prepares them for the globally competitive world we live in. education should be the great equalizer and every student should have access to the best education regardless of their zip code or their socioeconomic status.

there are public schools in this country that are among the best in the world. i am glad that some are in my district. mr. speaker, we know that public schools can work when we support them but for certain communities far too many struggle. tinue to we are leaving the rest behind in underfunded public schools, and our noble economy, it is essential that every day -- every child receives a quality education. and to do that our public schools need adequate resources. diverting public money to private and parochial schools only worsens that problem. i support access to a world-class public education for all students, but too often the majority in this body undercut that goal, whether through the so-called student success act, that leaves

schools in -- or today's d.c. soar bill that sorely misses the point. i urge my colleagues to listen to the people of the district of columbia and their elected representative, ms. norton. more importantly, listen to the teachers and the parents that reject this bill and reject this legislation. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. and the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, the chairman of the republican policy committee, mr. messer. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. messer: i thank the chair and the gentleman for yielding. ise in support of h.r. 10, the scholarships for opportunity and results re-authorization act. i want to thank mr. mcclintock for a lifetime of extraordinary leadership on this issue. as a former chairman of the

house -- speaker boehner improved educational opportunities for all students. literally thousands of kids have access to the american dream because of his dedication to the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. as chairman of the congressional school choice caucus, i was honored to have speaker boehner keynote a rally earlier this year with hundreds of opportunity scholarship recipients. i have to tell you, i'm amazed at some of the rhetoric i've been hearing today. talking about it's disgraceful this legislation is before you. i tell us what's disgraceful, it's disgraceful that any child in america has to go to a terrible school. and it's disgraceful that anyone would say we should do anything but make sure that every one of these kids have an opportunity to go to somewhere where they will have a chance to succeed. every child deserves equal

access to a great education. lots of kids have great public school options in america. other families can afford to send their kids to private school if they don't have a great public school option. this debate today is what we -- is about what we do for those who don't. unfortunately, too many kids in our country have their destiny determined by their zip code. these children are stuck in poorly performing schools and their parents feel powerless to do anything about it. that's why the education choice and the opportunity scholarship program matter. programs like dcosp have parents -- allow parents to choose the best educational environment for their child. the freedom provided by school choice levels the playing field and helps ensure all children have a chance to succeed. this legislation will continue to bring greater educational opportunities for the most underprivileged students in the district of columbia, and it takes zero -- let me repeat

that -- zero dollars away from d.c. public schools. because of this legislation, more than 6,000 students will have -- have had the opportunity to attend a great school. even better, an incredible of 90% of d.c. o.s.p. students graduate from high school. the d.c. opportunity scholarship program is clearly a success and needs to continue. mr. speaker, i hope for a day when we will be talking about even bolder proposals on this floor, because the truth is, we already have school choice in america if you can afford it. the only real question is, what are we going to do for everybody else? our founding fathers wrote in the declaration of independence , at all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. in modern america, the pursuit of happiness comes on the back of a quality education. mr. speaker, i yield back. thank you.

the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from utah -- mr. chaffetz: reserves the balance of my time. the chair: reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: i want to remind the gentleman that $100 million doesn't come out of the air. that this majority is cutting $2 billion from k-12. most of our children are k-12. that money has to come from somewhere. we know it comes from education funds. 'm pleased to yield one minute to my good friend from california, representative tonko. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 10, legislation that would re-authorize the d.c. voucher -- d.c. private school voucher program. this bill prioritizes an idea agenda over the rights of d.c.

residents to self-govern, and more importantly, over the rights of all students to get a quality education. study after study, the voucher program has failed to show any meaningful improvement in student achievement, safety, satisfaction, motivation or engagement. yet, since 2003, it has received nearly $190 million while failing to adhere to basic accountability standards. its funding should be dedicated to improving our underfunded and underresourced public school system. a school system that is required by law to serve all students. unlike public schools, private schools receiving voucher students have no requirement to serve all students, specifically, they are able to and do reject students based on prior academic achievement, language ability, socioeconomic background and other discriminatory factors. and many don't offer the necessary -- 15 seconds?

ms. norton: pleased to yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. takano: socioeconomic -- they reject students based on prior academic achievement, language ability, societiesio economic background and other -- socioeconomic background and other discriminatory factors. and many don't offer necessary resources for students with disabilities. this damages the public school system and disregards the district's right to choose its own education policy. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. i thank the gentlewoman from d.c. for yielding me time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentlelady from the district of columbia reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: might i inquire as to how much time each side has. the chair: the gentleman from utah has 17 minutes. the gentlelady from the district of columbia has 14 minutes remaining. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i thank the

chairman. i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from mr. grothman. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. grothman: i love to talk to immigrants who do so much of the work in our capital city. they all know america's great. they gush about how anybody can work in america and realize the american dream. when i ask about their kids and where they go to school, they almost uniformerly send their kids to maryland or virginia schools. even immigrants who can barely speak english and come from afghanistan, pakistan or nigeria know that d.c. schools mean stay away. how embarrassing for our country that new immigrants who barely speak english view our nation's capital schools with contempt. finally, president obama, we love you and michelle for the love you show your daughters. you show your love for your daughters by spending some of

your substantial salary to keep your daughters out of the d.c. public schools. please, president obama, show a little love for the children who don't have such wealthy parents and sign the soar act. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from utah -- mr. chaffetz: reserves. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves his time. the gentlelady from district of columbia. to norton: i want to talk the gentleman that those he talked to they go to maryland and virginia. as to the schools in the district of columbia, as i have indicated, there are waiting lines to get in almost all the charter schools, and the d.c. public schools have improved so much that some of them also have waiting lines. 'm pleased to yield five

minutes to our very distinguished ranking member, mr. cummings of maryland. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. cummings: i want to thank the gentlelady from the district of columbia for yielding and for your leadership and i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 10. we've been told that the purpose of this bill is to help all d.c. children get a better education. i strongly support that objective, but this does not do that. let me be crystal clear. public funds should support public education, but this bill proposes to spend more than $100 million over five years to fund vouchers to send public school students in the district of columbia to private schools while house republicans are proposing to cut $2 billion from public k-12 education nationally.

coming from the city of baltimore, i understand firsthand the complexities of turning around the struggling inner city schools. almost 10 years ago, i became deeply involved in improving one of my own neighborhood schools that i'm still involved in that, the maritime academy's high school. it takes vision, commitment, accountability and, yes, resources to begin the process of turning troubled schools around. however, it is impossible to turn around public schools if we divert public resources to private schools. put simply, h.r. 10 attempts to help a few students at the expense of the vast majority of the district's children. by dividing the funding, it provides among d.c. public schools, public charter schools and private school vouchers, h.r. 10 provides a third of its total funding to a tiny fraction of the district's students. specifically, the bill would fund vouchers and enable only

1,142 students, a tiny fraction of the district's 47,548 students to attend private school. the lack of equity is stunning. our focus should be on maximizing the impact of the federal government's limited resources to serve all the district's students. since this bill last passed in 2011, over my strong objection and along party lines, studies of the program have demonstrated that use of a voucher -- that the use of a voucher had no effect on academic measured by math and reading scores, school safety, student satisfaction with their school or motivation and engagement. previous studies of this program show that 50% of the students from the first two cohorts of the d.c. voucher program eventually dropped out of the program. students in the program also less likely to attend schools

that offer support programs for those that are academically challenged or have learning difficulties. in addition, this bill is a direct assault on d.c.'s home rule that was rushed through our committee shortly after speaker boehner announced his retirement. and the bill is not supported by d.c.'s elected representative in congress or majority of the d.c. security council. so all the rhetoric -- city council. so all the rhetoric justifying funding, all the talks about budget constraints, about tightening our belts and about making sacrifices, all that goes out the window when republicans want to give $100 million in taxpayer funds to private schools. as a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of quality public education, i believe our highest priority must be to use the limited taxpayer dollars to support programs that will truly meet the educational needs of all of our children. this bill does not do that. i urge our colleagues to reject

h.r. 10, and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back his time. the gentlelady from the district of columbia reserves her time. and the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, the chairman of the committee on education and work force, mr. kline. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank chairman chaffetz for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 10, the scholarships for opportunity and results re-authorization act. it's a bill to continue the popular and successful d.c. opportunity scholarship program. this program is based on a simple notion, that every child deserves an excellent education regardless of a family's background, income or zip code. the program provides scholarships to students in low-income families so they can cape underperforming schools to excel both in the classroom and later in life and our investment in this effort is paying off. last year 90% of 12th graders

who received the d.c. opportunity scholarship graduated from a high-quality school and 88% went on to pursue a college degree. what's more, when asked if they were satisfied with their child's education, 85% of parents responded yes. . it's no wonder every year the demand for scholarships exceeds the number of scholarships available. these positive results also explain why this important program has long enjoyed bipartisan support. of course there are some who don't believe these vulnerable families deserve the opportunity to do what is best for their children's education. at a time when this administration has spent billions of dollars pushing its own pet projects and priorities, it is routinely put -- it has routinely put this modest, successful program on the chopping block. fortunately majority in congress has continued to stand by these students and families by continuing to support the program and speaker john boehner has always stood at the forefront of those efforts. few have fought harder or locker for the educational opportunity -- longer for the educational opportunity for

d.c. students than john boehner. he's been a tireless champion for families who simply want the opportunity, any opportunity, for their children to receive a quality education. the d.c. opportunity scholar shm program began under his leadership -- scholarship program began under his leadership. this initiative has made a positive difference in the lives of thousands of students across the district. this act reflects his continued commitment to these families. more importantly, it reaffirms a bipartisan commitment to the d.c. opportunity scholarship program and the d.c. school children it serves. i urge my colleagues to help more low-income students and support this legislation and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. reserve the balance of my time reserve. the chair: reserves his time. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker, this morning a member said that a letter had come from a member of the city council, anita bonds, asking that her name be removed from the letter sent by

the council, majority of the council, saying that they opposed re-authorization of this bill. that member has since called me and she writes, dear member of congress, due to some confusion about my position on the district of columbia voucher bill, h.r. 10, i want to make my position clear. i oppose this bill and i intend to remain a signatory of the letter previously acknowledged that seven of my colleagues on the d.c. council -- council and i sent to chairman jason chaffetz dated october 8, 2015, opposition to the bill, signed, councilmember at large, anita bonds. i ask that her letter be included in the record. the chair: the request will be covered under general leave. ms. norton: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah.

mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield main and a half to the gentleman from -- i'm pleased to yield a minute and half to -- to the gentleman, mr. walker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walker: thank you. i rise today in support of this bill. the 150 months that i have -- the 10 months that i have been here, one of the neat things i have experienced is when we participated in a site visit under chairman chaffetz. it had a firsthand opportunity to interact with the kids and families about the success of the d.c. opportunity scholar shm program. i was recently reminded just a couple of weeks ago, when i was sitting in the hearing, seeing the families, seeing the moms just beaming with pride about their children having this special opportunity. in a 2013 and 2014 school year, the opportunity scholarship program had a graduation rate of 89%, which is astonishing compared to the d.c. public school graduation rate of 58%. as a former minister, i've

taken groups into the heart of the inner cities, places like new york and baltimore, specifically in cleveland there's a school there called sun beam elementary school. theives had stolen the copper off the weather vein, the school was filthy and there was a metal detector for an elementary school. we brought in a team of about 60 or 65 people, refurbished the school, did our best, but that was only a temporary fix. the soar act is a fix that lasts for a lifetime. it gives scholarships to children and low-income d.c. families to attend a private school. this piece of legislation also allows the parents the opportunity to provide a quality education for their children. i believe that education will only be successful if two foundational truths are rediscovered. first, that parents know what is best for their child. and they should have the freedom to pursue the path that works for them. and secondly and finally, states must stand up to the federal government to reclaim the freedom to educate their children. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from utah reserves. and the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. mr. speaker, once again, let's get this straight. the control study did not evaluate college attendance. it was not a part of the study. now, it did, it did evaluate graduation rates. mr. speaker, what it did not evaluate was dropout rates. private schools are no towers -- are notorious for sending back to the district of columbia children who they think are not doing well or they're not acting as they think they should act. unless we had those figures, we ould have no idea what the graduation rates were, because the graduation rates are those who were left in the school.

and did not get sent back. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of h.r. 10. why would i rise in support of this? if you hear the receipt frick the other side, you say, this is not a program that works. but if you compare the results, it does work. when you just hear that only 55% of people in d.c. public schools graduate from high school, and yet if they have an opportunity to go to this other school, 89% graduate, my goodness, what more do you need to understand? look, it's very evident about what's going on here. if you want our children to succeed, if you want our children to compel, if you want america to be able -- excel, if you want america to be able to compete worldwide, education is the answer. the true issue here is a moral issue and a civil rights issue.

and i really believe that president obama in 2008 was on toing is. this is what the president said. the single most important factor in determining student achievement is not the color of their skin, it's not where they come from, it's not their parents or how much money their parents have. it's who their teacher is. if there's one thing that's made this country exceptional it's that we have allowed everyone the opportunity to rise from whatever level they started at to whatever level they can achieve. it is only possible through education. this program works. $60 million is going to be equally divided -- divided between the d.c. opportunity scholar shm program, d.c. public schools and the d.c. public charter schools. when we give this money to the parents of these children and they get a chance to see their children excel, had they get a chance to see their children grow, when they see their children have great success, how can we sit in america's house and debate about, is this

really what it's all about? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kelly: thank you and i yield back. mr. chaffetz: reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: mr. speaker, members can keep repeating all they want to figures that have come from the air. the only thing evaluated by the congressionally mandated evaluation was the test scores. our public school students, our charter school students have to take these tests. these children took these tests . our public school students are doing better, not nearly as good as they should, and so are our charter schools. in fact, our charter schools are doing even better than our public school students. and these students didn't move at all. that is what the congressionally mandated study showed.

as to civil rights, these schools are exempted from many of the civil rights laws and for that reason the leadership conference on civil rights, the naacp and a number of organizations wrote opposing re-authorization of this bill. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina voiced for one minute. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman. i think there's one fundamental question in this debate. and that is, should a child be trapped into a school that traps them? should a child be trapped in a school that, for whatever reason, isn't working for them but would forever limit their capacity and their potential in life? to me that's what h.r. 10 is all about. i think it's important to remember that 98% of the kids that have entered this program have come from schools that

were not performing and in that regard this is simply a way out, it is a hand-up. i think it's fundamentally -- i think it fundamentally recognizes the dignity and worth that comes with giving somebody a choice. i think that it ising is that -- i think that it is something that every human being wants, a choice. it's a recognition that one size never fits all, that god makes us all different and therefore a plegget of different choices is vital -- plethora of different choice vice tal in the marketplace and it's recognition that the marketplace has the ability to create choices that might take forever in other systems, time that these kids do not have. i would ask that we refocus on the kids and with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. chaffetz: reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: i don't know about other members' districts but i challenge members to meet what the district of columbia has done to keep students from

being trapped in bad schools. in your districts can 75% of the children choose to go to a better performing district? they can in mine. in your district, are there 11010 publicly -- 110 publicly accountable charter schools as an alternative to your own traditional public schools? there are in mine. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the chairman for his leadership in bringing this excellent bill to the floor. i thank the chair for the time. this is this bill, in full disclosure, i'm a co-sponsor, will continue to promote school

choice and provide opportunity scholarship for d.c. students that are most in need while also expanding d.c. public charter schools, therefore providing more opportunities for washington students to excel and set themselves up for productive and successful lives. to date the scuent scholar shmprass hand been an educational life line for more then 6,000 children from very low income d.c. families and more than 16,000 have applied to participate since the 2004-2005 school year. quite simply put, this program works. it's no secret, i'm a big proponent of school choice. as chairman of the early childhood, elementary and secondary education subcommittee, i've heard about the challenges many students and schools are facing and i firmly believe that when parents have a choice, kids have a chance. this program, which has helped pave the way for others like it across the country, gives that chance. and it creates a healthy competition that causes all schools to improve, therefore helping all students, even

those who aren't in the program. as i've seen in my home state of indiana and across the great country touring schools and visiting classrooms, opportunity scholarships provide students a hands up in improving their lives, their families' lives and their communities. that is why we have a moral obligation to pass this legislation and why i urge my colleagues to join me, join the others here on the floor and re-authorize the d.c. opportunity scholar shm program -- scholarship program. a great education is a great equalizer. it opens doors to unlimited possibilities and provides students the tools that they need to succeed in life. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah has eight minutes remaining. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized and has six minutes remaining. ms. norton: i reserve. the chair: reserves. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. allen: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise today to support the scholarships for opportunity and results re-authorization act. speaker boehner led the nation over 10 years ago when he provided flexibility to washington, d.c., children and their parent lose it school choice. i believe that school choice is paramount to increasing educational gains for all children. but especially our nation's students who are most in need. the soar act gives scholarships to low-income students to attend a private school, providing them an opportunity to access a quality education that would otherwise be out of reach. school choice has proven to be successful in washington, d.c., as students using their scholarships have a 90% graduation rate compared to the 58% graduation rate for d.c. public schools in 2013 and 2014. . we heard today that these statistics have been questioned.

we hope the public schools are improving. without this act, would they actually be improving? i encourage my colleagues to stand up for school choice by supporting the soar act. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i am going to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: i reserve. the chair: continues to reserve. so it's the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i want to know -- i actually yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. . chaffetz: i -- "washington post," d.c. attack on needy students. i remind people, as they did in this document here, in this editorial that the eight councilmembers seem unaware that program was established in 2004 at the initiation of then the d.c. mayor anthony

williams. was also supported by the chairman of the council's education committee. and it has produced results. the graduation rates are amazingly good at 90 -- roughly 90% compared to d.c. public schools that are less than 60%. i think that's strong evidence that it is a winner, that it does provide good opportunity for people and that should be re-authorized. with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from the district. ms. norton: i'll reserve. the chair: continues to reserve. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: may i inquire as to how much time we have, each side? the chair: the gentleman from utah and the gentlelady from the district of columbia each have six minutes remaining. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, the author of this piece of legislation, the distinguished speaker of the house, mr. john boehner. the chair: the speaker is recognized. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding and thank all my colleagues who are

supporting this legislation today. you know, many of us remember the story of the little engine that could. and what happened was that the train full of tools wanted to get over the mountain to get to the kids on the other side. and the big engine said, nope, i cannot. and the rest of the old engine said, no, i cannot. but the little engine says, i'm not very big but i think i can, i can. well, from the beginning the d.c. opportunity scholarship program has been the little engine that could. we started this back in 2003 with the help of d.c.'s mayor at the time, anthony williams, and d.c. councilman kevin chaffetz and you know for years the government was promising the moon to d.c. families and spending the moon essentially. but nothing changed. so he said, if we're going to support public schools and

charter schools, let's also give low-income families the chance to apply for scholarships to attend the school of their choice. let's give them that power. because if you've got the resources, you can send to your kid to whatever school you want them to. you can move from the neighborhood they're in where they got a better school. but if you're poor and you're stuck in a bad neighborhood and your child doesn't have that chance or, frankly, any chance, they are just dead in the water, well, the d.c. opportunity scholarship program has been that little lifeline that could. all told, 6,100 students have escaped underperforming schools. and during that time, the program has received some 16,000 applications. last spring, 90% of 12th graders using the opportunity scholarships graduated.

and 88% enrolled in a two or four-year college. of the 1,400 students in the program this year, 87.4% would have been in a school that the government has identified as in need of improvement. these are the kind of results parents dream for for their kids. and while it's my name on the bill, the best champions of are some of the most fearless kids you'll ever see. not only did they have to overcome the doubts of the education establishment, they also had to withstand efforts by some of the most powerful people in this city to kill this program. so today i'm asking each of you to support h.r. 10, which re-authorizes this program for another five years.

and here's why. yes, this issue is personal to me and has been for a long time. frankly, it ought to be personal to every single member of this body. those of us who work here make a good living, we owe something to the kids in this town. we owe these kids a chance, a fighting chance at success. so what i'm asking you to do today, help these kids get over the mountain. help us keep building the movement that could. vote for h.r. 10. i yield back. the chair: the speak of the house yields back his time. the gentleman reserves? mr. chaffetz: i want to make ms. norton and others aware that i have no further speakers and i am prepared to close. i'll reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman is prepared to close. the gentlelady from the

district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. the speaker has said that without this program these children would have been in bad neighborhood schools. well, i think it must be noted that the district of columbia has done more to make sure that those children are not trapped in those schools than any district i have yet read about or heard of. 75% e -- i have noted that -- that means that the overwhelming number of children stuck in neighborhood schools that they believe are not good schools can go to the other side of town to a better school. far from being trapped, they are encouraged to choose a school. nd then i have cited 110 charter schools that are their

choice. mr. speaker, i want you to know that many of the voucher parents whom i have all met with -- after all, they are my constituents -- said to me they tried to get into one of our charter schools but the waiting list were so long which is why they went to the voucher schools. now, isn't it interesting that the voucher schools have no waiting list but the d.c. charter schools and many of our public schools have waiting lists? so much so that d.c. has had to combine the public schools and the charter schools on one list in a lottery so that they can choose which school to go to. how many members on that side have a lottery that lets the children, the parents choose the best school for them to go to?

do not dare tell me that the district of columbia leaves children trapped in failing schools. it has gone out of its way to do just the opposite. and what does it get for it? e imposition by this body of yet another form of alternative . indeed, the former mayor, a former mayor who himself went to catholic schools said he was for this school. well, mr. speaker, i ask you, since the district of columbia has control of its own education apparatus, why hasn't the district of columbia set up its own voucher schools? some other districts have done that. because they don't want it, mr. speaker. may i inquire as to how much time i have? the chair: the gentlelady from

has two minutes remaining. ms. norton: mr. speaker, there are many reasons why i oppose this bill. first, it has failed the goal that congress gave it. bring these children's test scores up. the public schools have brought their test scores up. the public charter schools have done even better in bringing their test scores up. these children's test scores ave not risen. reover, i can't fail to note in close proximity the majority s cut k-12 by $2 billion while taking $100 million out of obviously education funds to fund a private school voucher bill. mr. speaker, not everybody on my side of the aisle is for

public charter schools, but i have supported public charter schools because my own constituents wanted and needed a way out of neighborhood schools. and so even though i come to this body with home rule choices, this body is insisting on its choices knowing full well that nobody in the district of columbia can vote ainst them or can vote against it. it says to the people of the district of columbia, no matter how good it is, no matter how much you meet the standards we say -- we often talk about when it comes to choice, you, who have no vote on this floor, who will not vote on this bill when the bell rings in two minutes, you must do what we say. that's my -- that, my good friend, is not a chapter in

democracy. it shows once again that this body wants to do and does do whatever it cares to do to the district of columbia. even when it knows it is not the best thing to do for its own constituents and votes down for its own constituents what it now imposes on mine just as just a few weeks ago it voted down voachers -- vouchers. but today, today we'll vote to impose these same vouchers on the district of columbia. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. and the gentleman has five minutes remaining. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to correct the record there. i think obviously somebody misspoke. the house did not vote on vouchers in this congress.

that is not what has happened. i would also note, and i'll be inserting into the record the letter we got from 500 families, d.c. residents urging us in the adoption of this. i'll also be introducing in the record "the washington post" editorial from yesterday, misguided attacks on d.c.'s needy students. actually supporting this. and the bottom line is this program produces results. i like the variety of choices, and the delegate has been a real champion for charter schools. and i applaud her for that. i support her in that. but the reality is the scholarships that we're talking about here, the opportunity scholarships have yielded the best results with nearly 90% graduation rates and roughly 88% of the people then going on to college. those are amazing statistics. but i've heard a lot of derogatory comments. i heard everything from misguided and idiotic,

disgraceful, weakens, underfunded. underfunded? underfunded? that's offensive to us from utah. we happen to have the lowest per pupil funding in the entire united states. we're not proud of that fact, but the fact is we get roughly $6,500 per student. wherein washington, d.c. you get about $19,500 per student. it's not even close. and here we are championing and trying to give more money, more resources to what are underperforming students and giving them more choice. i guess one of the things you should consider is if the congress does support this bill, does pass this bill, it is appropriated, would anybody on the democratic side of the aisle actually recommend that the city not take the money? if it's so idiotic, if it's so disgraceful, so

why not cut it off now? they want to continue to let it happen for those that have scholarships now because they know it's working and they can't look the parents in the eye and take it away but they'll deny the choice to future generations where we know there has been demonstrateable success. so i'm proud of speaker boehner and what he's done to champion this bill. i think it is a good bill, and with that i urge the adoption of this bill and yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: all time for germ debate has expired. the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the amendments recommended by the committee on oversight and government reform printed in the bill are adopted and the bill shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in house report 114-300. each further amendment may be

offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report rblings shall be designated in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment or shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-300. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 114-300 offered by mr. chaffetz of utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: the manager's amendment that i'm making makes small and technical changes. it substitutes the term

low-achieving schools to lower -performing schools which is the same language. the amendment makes clear that the secretary of education and the mayor will monitor and report on the use of funds authorized by this bill. third, the amendment clarifies reporting requirements in the bill to protect students against arbitrary exclusions from the program. and the amendment requires the secretary of education to direct funding for public charter schools to the district office of the state superintendent of education. mr. chairman, it's a good amendment and reflects the ongoing discussions with the district of columbia. i urge its adoption and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from district of columbia seek recognition? does the gentlewoman claim the time in opposition? ms. norton: i have agreed with

the chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: i do not oppose this amendment. i want to thank our chairman for working with us before this committee markup on this bill on some additional checking, technical changes. i reserve the balance of my time r i think i can yield my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back? ms. norton: i do. the chair: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i appreciate working with the delegate and it is a good working relationship. we have our opposition sometimes from time to time, but we did work together in a way and i appreciate her support of this amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in . use report 114-300 for what purpose does the gentlewoman from district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-300 offered by ms. norton of the district of columbia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 480, the the gentlewoman from from district of columbia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. norton: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker's bill is sure to pass and i'm sure it is offered with the best of intentions. therefore i want to work with him and members who support vouchers to provide much-needed oversight for the millions of

federal dollars. it is in that spirit that i offer a two-part amendment. and both parts are entirely consistent with the underlying bill. the government accountability office said in 2007 and again in 2013 that the voucher program lacks quality controls, transparency and information. in response, the first part of my amendment restores the scientific integrity of the program's evaluation, copied from prior authorizations of this bill. and the second prohibits voucher mills. not our accredited catholic schools attended by most of our children, but their competition for vouchers, a small but significant number of private schools that would not exist but for this federal funding. first my amendment restores the evaluation of the program's effectiveness that congress has required since the program was

created in 2004 to be and i'm quoting from congress, to be conducted, using the strongest possible research design, end quote. in contrast, this bill requires the evaluation to be conducted sing, quote, an acceptable quasiexperimental research design and prohibits the more randomized control trial congressman dated in prior authorizations. yet the mandated evaluation said that ran omized control trials, quote, are especially important in the context of school choice because families wanting to apply for a choice program may have goals and aspirations that differ from the average family. i appreciate that this bill requires for the first time that will schools be accredited but gives unaccredited schools five years along with the grace

period of a year to become accredited. this is so long that it would allow existing and new unaccredited schools to accept voucher students well into the decade. the 50% cap that my amendment proposes at least would ensure that voucher bills wol ultimately -- voucher schools wol ultimately be eliminated. for example, the gamplet a.o. found that six participating voucher schools had more than 80% of their enrollment to come from voucher students, a "washington post" investigation found that one school where voucher students comprise 93% of the total. the majority concedes that there is a need for ongoing evaluation of the program's effectiveness by requiring a stud of this -- study of this bill. after a study, the majority took

care of that by watering down the mandated evaluation. the second part of my amendment prohibits these fly-by-night school voucher bills by limiting the percentage of voucher schools to 50% of the schools. no student or sibling would be affected by the cap. my amendment would disqualify so-called voucher mills, a small, but significant number of schools, that cannot survive without government funding, most of which have sprung up in low-income neighborhoods. why should the major recipients and share the available funding with voucher mills of low quality. the way to eliminate these unaccredited schools which are unworthy of our students is to

enrollment their not consist primarily of voucher students. i ask that the "post" thestigation be included in record the chair: without objection. ms. norton: the federal government seal of approval. considering that the purpose is to improve student achievement, voucher bills are inconsistent with the congressional intent and should not be enabled with federal funds or get the federal funds. the majority indicated in committee and also on this floor that they oppose voucher mills and willing to work with me on this issue. i hope to continue to work with the majority as the bill moves forward to eliminate voucher bills. i yield. the chair: the gentlewoman's

time has expired. covered under general leave. mr. chaffetz: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: without objection. mr. chaffetz: this is the same amendment that delegate norton offered to the bill in markup but rejected. the amendment would cap enrollment of the o.s.p., students, 50% of the population without affecting current voucher students or siblings. the amendment would restore the control study requirement. this program is about opportunity and choice. parents should be be able to choose the best school for their child. and private schools should have the flexibility to determine whether or not to enroll o.s.p. students. i understand the delegate's concerns. in fact, i share it. that's why h.r. 10 requires o.s.p. schools to achieve accreditation no less than five years after the passage of the

act. the quality ash temporarily excluding students. the accreditation process required by h.r. 10 will ensure administrative and quality control and will weed out poor performer without setting a cap. as for the return to the control group evaluation, this is unnecessary for the o.s.p. it has been evaluated using the gold standard since 2003 and demonstrated positive results. the gold standard evaluation using a randomized evaluation limits participation. some applicants receive college scholarships while others were placed in a control group. it is time to allow as many students to receive scholarships as funding permits. mr. chairman, it's important to note that the bill does not foresake evaluation.

it requires evaluation to be compared to students of similar backgrounds. the method means no more students will be barred from a good education for the sake of the experiment. mr. chairman, on average 2.5 students apply for each scholarship that is ultimately awarded and should be focused on meeting the demand for good education rather than arbitrary student' ability to succeed. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment which would exclude children from the educational opportunities they desire and deserve. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from district of columbia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. there being no further

amendments, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house of the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 10 and pursuant to the house resolution 480, i report the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with a further amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole reports the committee has had under consideration h.r. 10 and reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on

any amendment from the committee on the whole? the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to re-authorize the scholarships for opportunity and results act and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: i have a motion to -- mr. scott: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. i'm opposed to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk: mr. scott ofirginia moves to recommit the bill to the committee on oversight and government reform with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with with the following amendments, add at the end of section 6, the

following new subsection, f, requiring protection of students and applicants under civil rights law. ection 3008, section 38-1853.08, d.c. official code is amended by adding the following new subsection, i, requiring protection of students and applicants under civil rights laws in addition to meeting the requirements of subsection a, and eligible entity or a school may not participate in the opportunity scholarship program unless the school certifies to the secretary that the eligible entity or school will provide each student who applies for or receives an opportunity scholarship under this act with the politicable provisions under each of the following laws.

two, title 6 of the civil ghts act of 1964, 42 u.s.c., 2000-d. three, title 9 of the education amendments act of 1972, 20 u.s.c. 1681. four -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. >> i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: the objection is heard. the clerk will read. the clerk: four, the equal educational opportunities act 20015. 20 u.s.c. the individual with disabilities, 20 u.s.c., 1400. six, the rehabilitation act of 1973, 29 u.s.c. 701. seven, the age discrimination act of 1975, 42 u.s.c. 6101. eight, the americans with disabilities act of 1990, 42 u.s.c. 12101.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. i rise to speak in support of the democratic motion to recommit that would protect the civil rights of students at schools that receive vouchers by requiring the schools to certify that they provide each student with all applicable civil rights protections. the d.c. voucher program calls into question multiple civil rights protections and turns a blind eye to government-funded discrimination. for example, religious schools that accept vouchers are permitted to discrimination on the basis of religion and hiring a violation of traditional principles, prohibiting discrimination based on religion when using federal money. the fact is that most religious schools are part of a ministry of the sponsoring church and these schools either cannot or will not separate the religious content from their academic programs, so it's impossible to prevent a publicly funded

voucher program for paying for these institutions' religious activities and education. furthermore, schools that accept vouchers are allowed to discriminate based on gender. in admissions, a violation of the principles of title 9. in addition to the discrimination based on religion, the d.c. voucher program also raises serious concerns about the civil rights of students with disabilities. idea requires that schools that receive federal idea funds provide appropriate education to all students with disabilities, but at least one study found that the schools that accept d.c. vouchers serve students with disabilities at a much lower rate than public schools. failing to meet the needs of students with disabilities is just one of the shortcomings of the d.c. voucher program, but another issue is the performance of the schools. a 2010 department of education report concluded that use of a voucher adds no statistically impact on overall student

achievement in math or reading. additional studies found that schools in need of improvement showed no improvement in math or reading due to the voucher program. furthermore, participating in the voucher program had no impact on students' safety, satisfaction, motivation or engagement. mr. speaker, many of those who actually want a voucher can use them -- can't use them because the voucher does not cover the full cost of attending a private or religious school. as a result, many who win a voucher found they cannot use it because they can't afford the remaining cost of the education. and so studies have confirmed that fewer 25% of students who use the vouchers are from schools that were in need of improvement. the d.c. voucher program fails on all counts. it violates principles of traditional civil rights laws. it makes no improvement on student achievement and fails to reach the very children it was designed to help. our public schools need more funding, not less.

schools that lacks civil rights protections and helping the right students, we should focus on initiatives that will result in overall improvement of the educational system for all of our students. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support our children by supporting this motion to recommit. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. as i said before, mr. scott of virginia is one of my favorite people in this body. i have the greatest respect. his perspective is one that i often share. i would just highlight for this body here, because i do urge a no vote on this motion to recommit, that we had a field hearing in may. we've had good debate.

we had a good markup. we had always projected to move this bill in the fall. i think it is time to bring up this bill. and so we've never had this issue ever brought to my attention as chairman of the committee. i'd also highlight that section 3008, nondiscrimination and other requirements for participating schools -- i'll just read point a, in general, any eligible school or entity shall not discriminate against program participants or applicants on the basis of race, color, nationality -- national origin, religion or sex. i do look forward to working with the gentleman and anybody else on these issues moving forward, but i would urge a no vote on the motion to recommit. with that i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the noes have it. mr. scott: mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to the order of the house of today, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the order of the house today, proceedings will resume on questions postponed. passage of h.r. 692, the motion to recommit on h.r. 10 and passage of h.r. 10, if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted by a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is on the vote of passage h.r. 692, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 201, h.r. 692, a bill to ensure the payment of interest and principal of the debt of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays 194. he bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the of motion to the

recommit. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: a motion offered by mr. scott of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 185 the nays are 242. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. he bill is passed. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. 5 sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 240, the nays will 191. without objection the bill is passed and without objection ethe -- the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that if a veto message on h.r. 1735 is laid before the house then after the message is read and the objections of the president are spread at large upon the journal first consideration of the veto message and the bill shall be postponed until the legislative day of thursday, november 5, 2015, and that on that legislative day, the house shall proceed to the constitutional question of reconsideration and dispose of such question without intervening motion.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on a vorded -- recorded vote on which the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20678 any record vote on the postponed question will be taken tomorrow.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 1362, to amend title 11 of the social security act to clarify waiver authority regarding programs of all-inclusive care for the elderly. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 1362, an act to amend title 11 of the social security act regarding waiver programs of all-inclusive programs for the care of the

elderly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. brady and the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on s. 1362 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. brady: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: i rise in strong upport for s. 1362, the pace innovation act of 2015. the companion bill in the house, h.r. 3243 was introduced -- the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. will members take their conversations off the floor.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: the companion bill in the house, h.r. 3243, was introduced by my longtime colleague and real champion for the elderly and frail, chris smith of new jersey. this legislation is a commonsense, bipartisan approach to increasing flexibility in our health care system. pace, or the program of all-inclusive care for the elderly, is an integrated care program that provides hands on long-term care and support for beneficiaries who need an sfutional level of care but continue to live at home. many of these beneficiaries are dual eligible orel jibble for both medicare and medicaid. hardworking americans who care for these beneficiaries and want to keep their loved ones at home have relied on this program for well over a decade as the program has now expanded to 32 states. there are two programs currently operating back in texas and i'm looking forward to monitoring

the programs' continued success back home. however, currently the pace model is limited. seniors who meet a specific list of criteria, federal and state, for meeting the nursing home level of care -- for needing nursing home level of care. the pace innovation act would allow medicare to test pace benefit on other vulnerable populations. with the popularity and zhofse pace program it's clear that to live up to its full potential nationally, other populations should be targeted to benefit from comprehensive pace models. these beneficiaries are some of our nation's most vulnerable who, along with their family, have chosen not to enter into full-time nursing home care at a facility. studies have shown people receiving care from pace organizations have better outcomes, less hospital sargses and more importantly have more time to spend with their families in their own homes and that is key.

the pace act is revenue neutral and widely support. i want to thank fellow committee members, charles boustany, lynn jenkins, jim mcdermott and richard neal for their strong support of this effort and encourage the whole house to vote to pass s. 1362 under suspension of the rules and send it to the president's desk. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i appreciate the comments from my friend from texas. mr. speaker, there's occasionally a little bit of controversy around the house, modest amount of disagreement, and of course that's just in the republican conference. we -- lots of things that get the spotlight. but i appreciate the leadership of my friend with our help -- our health subcommittee on ways

and means where there are things below the radar screen where we've been working in a thoughtful and bipartisan way to try and see if we can work on these things. they don't have to cost a lot of money. they enable us to be able to refine health care opportunities. one of the biggest accomplishments of the session was getting the s.g.r. monkey off our back to deal with the sustainable growth rate in a bipartisan fashion. there's been, i want to say, about 12 bills that have moved out of our health subcommittee that deal with initiatives going forward. what my friend said was absolutely true. this is an opportunity for us o take a proven set of techniques to help seniors who are -- who want to stay in home, who do not want to be in nursing facilities, being able

o give them the flexible needs in terms of services, and it works. represent a program in portland, the oregon providence elder care -- elder place, serves over 1,000 oregonians. it's got a solid track record. it has costs that are lower than average, if they were medicaid beneficiaries. and some states, these savings can be nearly 30%. there are opportunity here's to able to give better ongoing service. the hospital readmission rate -- the program i mentioned in oregon, is far under the national average of 15.2%. about half that rate. this simply extends this opportunity to a broader range of beneficiaries. people who have complex health conditions, but who are

younger, for instance. they are no less deserving of this opportunity. i am absolutely convinced that the results will be every bit as strong. i appreciate having this bill move forward and appreciate the advocacy of my friend, mr. smith from new jersey. we seem to find a variety of things to work on together in this congress, and there's nothing that i think is more important, is going to have more long term impact for people who are quite vulnerable, it's going to save the federal government money, while it provides better outcomes for patients and for their families. and with that i would reserve the balance of my time. urging strong support from my colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. he gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. smith: thank you very much, mr. speaker. first of all, let me thank kevin brady, the chairman, for his extraordinary leadership on this and so many other issues. and mr. blumenauer with whom we have worked together to build a strong bipartisan push for this piece of legislation. i do rise in strong support for ssage of s. 1362, the pace innovation act. this bill will provide pace programs with flexibility, to bring a proven model of care to new populations. the program for all incluesive care for the elderly or -- inclusive care for the elderly or pace is a widely popular program, severaling 30,000 seniors across the country. for those umunfamiliar with pace, the program cliffers -- unfamiliar with pace, the program delivers the entire range of long term services including medical care and prescription drug services, physical or occupational therapy, day or respite care, and medical specialties such as dentistry, optometry and

pediotry. he will jict is limited to those aged -- eligibility is limited to those 55 and older mo may meet space specified cry tear -- state specified criteria. this program will provide wellness, keeps people in their homes, is already doing it, now more people will benefit from it. it improves outcomes and this is all for people who otherwise would be paying catastrophic costs for nursing home care. mr. speaker, pace has seen a significant growth in recent years. including a 30% increase in the number of people receiving services over the last three years alone. pace has a proven track record in my own state of new jersey, where programs currently serve roughly 900 seniors throughout the state. just last week, mr. speaker, i had the opportunity to attend the grand opening and ribbon cutting of a new pace program in new jersey's fifth program. when i first heard about pace, i worked hard to bring this

valuable program to my state, back in 2009. even though it was around before that, it was one of the best kept secrets around. we then formed or they formed the first pace program called life, living independently for the elderly, at st. francis medical center in trenton and hamilton area. i have visited st. francis life often since and on its fifth anniversary was overwhelmed by the appreciation of seniors and their families for the program's ability to raise or maintain their quality of life. the limits, however, and operational restrictions placed on pace do not allow these programs to serve many others in need, chronological age should not be the determinant, if somebody is disabled and could use and should use a nursing home, is eligible, this gives them another option to the family to keep them at home. the legislation would allow

c.m.s. to establish pilot programs and waive restrictions and the tests on how to deliver best results for new populations. as the national chairman of national pace public policy committee testified before the health subcommittee on energy and commerce, he told them, told stories about a man named jim gee. 54-year-old man with early onset alzheimer's disease. he was hospitalized for lung infection and as a result stayed home alone during the day where he was isolated and struggled with activities of daily living such as personal grooming, household chores and child care. his wife quit her job to care for him full time, but his needs were more than she could handle. he was permanently placed in a memory care union -- unit, and since pace was not an option for jim, remember, he was 54 years old, his wife is crowd sourcing to try to pay his

medical care. this heartbreaking story could have been eliminated. i also chair the alzheimer's caucus, mr. speaker, here in the house. i can tell you there are many patients with early onset who could benefit and benefit in a very, very significant way with this change in law and i look forward to the president's signature and again i want to thank you, kevin, for your leadership and your very distinguished staff. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman yields back. mr. brady: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close, just by saying, again, i express my appreciation to the chairman, to mr. smith, for moving this forward. we find that the evaluations of the pace program has proven that participants experience better health outcomes, fewer unmet needs, less pain, less likelihood of depression, fewer hospitalizations and nursing home admissions. there are people out there now, if we make this change, that

are ready to extend this higher quality of care for very deserving, needy, vulnerable people who are younger than the threshold, 55 years of age. i urge we vote tonight, enact it into law, let these people get to work serving these and profoundly improved way. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself -- thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume in closing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: i want to thank mr. smith, mr. blumenauer, for coming together on a very important program that makes so much sense. you know, this is our mom or our dad, our loved one, who wants to get care but doesn't want to be in that nursing home, it's good for them, it's great for the family, it's good for taxpayers, it just makes commonsense. and having this strong bipartisan support for this bill, i think, is every reason

for it to pass through this house, be signed by the president and be expanded all across america. so i stand in strong support for the pace innovation act and urge its passage. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1362. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house the following message.

the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergencies act, 50 united states code 1622-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to the situation in or in relation to the democratic republic of the congo declared in executive order of october 27, 2016, is to continue in -- 2006, is to continue in effect beyond october 27, 2015. the situation in or in relation to the democratic republic of the congo, which has been marked by widespread violence and atrocities that continue to threaten regional stability,

continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the united states. for this reason, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in executive order 13413 with respect to the situation in or in relation to the democratic republic of the congo. signed, barack obama, the white house, october 21, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> tomorrow the select committee on benghazi will hold hearings certain to drive congressional approval ratings to new lows. the majority leader, the leader of the republicans, the new

york republican, mr. hanna, and former republican committee staffers have all confessed that the purpose of this committee is no governmental purpose, but the political purpose of driving down secretary clinton's approval ratings and political prospects. mr. sherman: and for that we've spent $4.5 million taxpayer dollars. but even before those admissions, it was apparent that that was the purpose of this committee. they've held four hearings in 17 months. developed nothing of significance. they've abandoned plans to have hearings with top intelligence and defense officials. they've done nothing up until now. and yet tomorrow they are set to spend eight hours grueling one woman. nothing about the tragedy in benghazi has been revealed by this committee and nothing will be revealed tomorrow.

all this committee has done is focus on what has been referred to as secretary clinton's damn emails. look at the rules that bind congress on emails. we are free to use any server, we are free to keep and delete or take the emails with us. we've got an 8% approval rating, it's going down tomorrow as a result of what the benghazi committee plans to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the faculty -- faculty, staff, and students at trinidad early college high school at mountain view for being named a 2015 national blue ribbon school. for the last 33 years, the department of education has recognized superior schools for their academic achievement, their progress in closing

achievement gaps and demonstrating that all students can achieve at a high level of success. nominated by the top education officials in texas, trinity is one of 335 schools across the country being recognized as a 2015 blue ribbon school and one of 28 such schools in the great state of texas. as a dual degree school, trinity has made it a priority to make students college-ready, life-ready and career-ready. i am proud to represent a school that has truly excelled since opening in 2006. they along with 334 other schools will be recognized at a ceremony in washington on november 9 and 10. i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating trinity early college high school on this important accomplishment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask

unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, there are 10 -- nine more legislative days to act fully to protect the full faith and credit of the united states before november 3 in order to prevent the risk of a first-ever u.s. default. we know that a default is not what the american people want. it would shatter retirement savings and send mortgage rates for -- send interest rates for mortgage, state of the union loans and other loans soaring. we know even the threat of default has serious consequences. we have experienced a downgrading in our credit rating before because our colleagues on the other side took us to the catastrophic brink. then we realize that what we did today, pay china act first, did not help the american people.

we'll impact 1.4 million active duty troops, not paying our debt. millions of disabled veterans, 2.3 veterans who received home purchasing help, not paying our debt. small businesses who sell to the government, and most doctors and hospitals who treat the 53.8 million medicare patient around the country not paying our debt. we cannot hold the united states hostage or our credit hostage. it's time to address in a fair and reasonable manner the debt of the united states which is the people of the united states, get rid of sequester, follow our responsibilities and pay our bills so that we can help those veterans who need help. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. are there any further one-minute requests? under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

ms. lofgren: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i rise on behalf of the california democratic congressional delegation to honor the life of don edwards who passed away earlier this month at the age of 100 in his home in carmel. congressman don edwards was someone i was proud to know for many years. he was born in san jose, california, in 1915, growing up on south 13th street. living in san jose at an idyllic time he took the trolley to play golf as a young man, attended public schools in san jose, and received his bachelor's degree from stanford university, where he later studied law and was admitted to the bar association

of california in 1940. he became an f.b.i. agent during the depression he used to talk about his service as an f.b.i. agent, which he jokingly referred to as long hours looking for auto thieves in indianapolis. but in fact, he served with great distinction in the f.b.i. and he went on to serve in the united states navy as an intelligence officer and a gunnery officer in world war ii. he was first elected to represent what was then california's ninth congressional district in 1962 and he served for 32 years, until january 3, 1995. i remember the first time i saw congressman don edwards. it was before he was a congressman, he was a give -- he was giving a speech in mitchell park in palo alto, california. i was just out of elementary school and i remember how

impressed i was and inspired i was by his words. he in turn had been inspired by president kennedy to run for congress. he was successfully elected that year. over the years he represented such communities as san jose, gill roy, morgan hill, parts of milpedas, fremon, union city he served on the judiciary committee and served as chairman of the house subcommittee on civil liberties and civil rights for 23 years. he also sat on the veterans affairs committee. now he was one, congressman don edwards, was one of the foremost defenders of civil liberties in congress. in the 1970's, along with senator frank church and his committee, they exposed the pervasive abuses of civil liberties in j. edgar hoover's co-intel probe which monitored, infiltrated and disrupted

entirely lawful civil rights organizations and his stature as a former f.b.i. agent allowed him to be effective in this role. in his first year in the house, he voted to abolish the house un-american activities committee and he was involved every year, and in fact, i hoped him in the -- i helped him in the early 1970's, in trying to abolish hue act and we succeeded in 1975. he was involved in the passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965. he was a dignified and important member of the house judiciary committee during the consideration of the impeachment of richard nixon. and he was known throughout the country as somebody who stood up for the constitution. earlier today, former congresswoman elizabeth holseman came on the floor and we were talking that former members have

the right to be present on the floor, but they do not have the right to address the congress as a former member. but she wanted everyone to know that she was so proud that she was able to serve with congressman edwards on the judiciary committee and she is not alone. of people who were able to serve with him. his contributions will live on for many generations as demonstrated by the don edwards san francisco bay national wildlife refuge which was the first urban national wildlife refuge in the united states. i remember he used to call the chairman of the committee in the 1970's every single morning, saying, where is my wildlife refuge? because such endangered species as the california clapper rail and the salt water harvest marsh mouse were on the verge of extinction and now they are not because of his work. as i side, he was a stalwart

defender of the constitution and tireless advocate for the rights of women and was known as the father of the equal rights amendment, which he introduce every year. -- which he introduced every year. he was also known as a champion of ivel -- champion of civil rights. after becoming chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional right, then known as subcommittee number four. he managed the equal rights amendment on the house floor in 1971, the extension of the voting rights act in 1982, and all other civil rights bills of the era. now, outside of congress, he took part in civil rights marches in the south. his son lyn was a freedom rider duringjoined lyn edwards the mississippi summer he visited dr. martin luther king when dr. king was imprisoned in the birmingham, alabama, jail. and don edwards spoke out against athat are thide while

visiting south -- apartheid while visiting south africa. congressman don edwards had a long, full lil -- fulfilling life. part of that was his marriage to edie until her death in april of 2011. she and he were very involved in a group that no longer is active in the house called members of congress for peace through law. because they were people who believed that we could have a peaceful world and the root to -- and the route to peace was the rule of law. congressman edwards is survived by four sons, lyn edwards, samuel, bruce, and thomas, as well as four grandchildren and five great grandchildren. he died peacefully and with a great deal of grace according to his son, and i quote, he died as e lived, an elegant man. he leaves a legacy of supporting civil rights, advocating for

those less fortunate in our society, and as being a strong defender of our constitution. in fact, in his district, they used to call him not the congressman from the 10th congressional district but the congressman from the constitution. i'm el fortunate that when i graduated from congress, from college in 1970, i came to washington without a job. i walked into his office and he hired me. and i worked for him for nearly nine years, both here in washington and in his district in san jose. he helped me enormously by giving me time off to take exams while i was taking my law school classes. he helped me and men tord me and i feel a great debt of gratitude to him personally for all he did to help me. but mainly, inspire me and a whole generation of americans to

believe in their country and to believe in their constitution and to believe in the rule of law and civil rights. with that, i yield five minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from california, mr. sam farr. mr. farr: thank you very much for yielding, zoe lofgren, the chair of our wonderful california delegation, the largest democratic delegation in congress. when i aa-- when i arrived in congress in a special election in 1993, don edwards was the dean, the chair of the democratic delegation. the same delegation that his former employee, zoe lofgren, congresswoman zoe lofgren now holds. he was the father figure for all of us from california and i think from the entire congress when you look at his remarkable record. it's ironic that don edwards grew up in a republican family

in the stanford area, in santa clara valley, attended stanford university, was captain of the golf team. did very well in golf. so much so that the district i represent every year hosts what was formerly known as the crosby clam bake, now the at&t pro-am golf tournament and don edwards told me he carried his pro he got a better score than his pro tournament. the the first tournament, first clam bake at pebble beach. he soon became president of the young republicans and quickly thereafter left the young republicans and became a very, very liberal democrat. i asked him once, as he retired as congressman lofgren said to carmel, california, he retired to a home right next to the home i grew up in and my sister still

lives in. we had many, many nights with he and edie discussing politics. i once asked him what made you become a democrat? he said, well, you know, sam, after i got out of stanford, i was in the f.b.i. and right after law school, and after i knew what the government coul do to you through the f.b.i., i decided that i had better be on the other side to protect the rights of individuals. he then became a navy intelligence officer. one of the things that happened when he left the f.b.i., he was no fan of the head of the f.b.i., j. edgar hoover, and he asked congress to audit the f.b.i. the f.b.i. had never been audited, all of the seizure of the equipment and goods and things that they had taken in their arrests were used to support them internally and people thought there might be

some foul play there. because he was -- he asked for that audit, he was on their black list. former f.b.i. agent, knew a little bit too much about what was going on inside the nib and with j. edgar hoover. as a member of congress, it's interesting, he got elected when john f. kennedy was president and left congress when bill clinton was president. all of those presidents between kennedy and clinton, don edwards had served with. if anybody, he was probably the most dapper, best dressed, politest, nicest human being on this floor. he had great friends on the republican side of the aisle. even though he was such a liberal member of the democratic party. one of his friends was hamilton fish from new york. they worked together on many of these remarkable acts. the civil rights act of 1964.

the voting rights act of 1965. he became chair of the subcommittee on civil and tutional rights. and he managed equal rights mendment on the house floor. he was -- he was a constitutional, civil rights, human rights expert. and passionate about his ought to at the law protect people. when don and edie retired to carmel, california, they brought with them a lot of their friends from washington and in his home state of california, and we used to have wonderful dinner parties together. he was still a member of cypress point golf club. a very exclusive golf club. in fact, he was the longest surviving member of that club.

unfortunately, edie predeceased him, his wonderful wife for many year, who we all loved and we're saddened about her development of lung cancer. and she died. and don wanted to have a memorial service for her at a local church and then the reception at the cypress point golf club, one of the most conservative golf clubs in the united states. -- was very proud in that that the -- after the church service to invite everybody and he proudly stated that this is the largest collection of democrats that had ever been at cypress point country club. he had a great sense of humor, lots of friends, remarkable human being, able to work across the aisle, something we miss today, and with that, he was able to accomplish some of the

greatest laws of this country in the modern era, a good friend of republicans and democrats, but most of all friends of the animals and the people who couldn't speak for themselves. we will sorely miss this great man who served this great institution for a long, long time and my wife sends all of her best, she was at his bedside when he died and she was part of his care taking team. we will have services for him in carmel this sunday and there will be services in the san jose area and future services here in washington. so i stand tonight to give you my thoughts on my relationship with a great man, don edwards who championed civil rights and died at the age of 100. thank you very much and i yield back. . >> thank you, sam farr. i'd now like to yield to the gentlelady from san francisco, ms. pelosi, such time as she may consume.

ms. pelosi: thank you very much, congresswoman lofgren, the chair of the house democrats of california. for calling us together on this special order to honor a truly great man. i want to associate myself with the remarks that have gone before and to say to sam farr, thank you to you and to sherry for the love and affection and care that you gave not only to don edwards but to edie wilky for such a long time. we all talked about how much we loved them. you were there for them all the time. and we're completely and entirely in your debt. thank you for the love that you gave them. and thank you, again, the entire california delegation, for orchestrating this special order hour. tonight, mr. speaker, we honor an august statesman who labored with dignity, led with integrity and lived with courage. congressman don -- well, his donlynn, william,

otherwise known as don edwards, whos passed away last month at the age -- who passed away last month at the age of 100 years old. his life was a gift to the nation. he protected our communities through his service as an f.b.i. agent, he protected our country through his service in the u.s. navy during world war ii, he moved our country forward through his service as a u.s. congressman. service, leadership, patriotism , don edwards. don reminded us that how we live our values matters. so he fought for fair pay, becoming the father of the equal rights amendment. he stood with the freedom riders at a time when they were written off as trouble makers and agitators. he championed the civil rights act of 1964 and fought to protect freedom of speech. he spoke up for workers, for our environment, for the resources needed to improve our

country, and for the -- and for future generations. as chair of the house judiciary subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights, for more than 20 years, don became the conscience of the congress and strivinged to ensure that all americans enjoyed equality of opportunity. he took great pride in the fact that he was the floor leader for the equal rights amendment. that he managed that bill. during his 32 years in the house, congressman edwards helped change the course of history, so significant was his leadership. oddly enough, don won his first election to any office in 1950, when he was elected president of the california young republicans. throughout his life, don's ability to respect all he appoints made him a remarkable leader, respected by members on both sides of the aisle. when he was 88 years old, don remind -- reminded us that the world works better when we get along and that's what we owe

everybody. in california we hold a special place of honor for congressman edwards, the long-time dean of the california democratic delegation. the beautiful, pristine don edwards san francisco bay national wildlife refuge serves as a tribute to his efforts to preserve our environment and our ideals for future generations. in fact, he, as a modern day man and a member of congress, with his love of nature and all living things, was probably as close to a model of saint francis as we have ever seen. don edwards, a gentle, beautiful man. don edwards never stopped serving our country and his achievements will stand forever as a living monument to his determined vision and legendary ability. but it wasn't just about that.

it's how he encouraged others. i can tell you when i came to congress 28 years ago, there were only 23 women in the house. out of 435. 12 democrats, 11 republicans. to say that we weren't always paid full attention to would sound almost complaining but it was a fact. nobody ever asked you, what do you think, to any of the women members. i mean, we made our voices heard, of course, but nobody ever said, what do you think? except don edwards. don edwards would say, what do you think of this, to each of us. especially when he was dealing with issues that related directly to us, but even well beyond that, whether we were talking about national security, economic growth, whatever the subject, don would always say to us, what do you

think? i can remember hearing him say, nancy, what do you think? and i said, don, do you know how unusual that is to hear you say that? and he'd say, why do you say that? i said, because not many people around here, of the 400 anding is versus the 23 -- and something versus the 23 come up and ask the few of us who are here, the few women who are here, what we think. but he was always about encouraging people to reach their fulfillment and to see what their contribution could do for the common good. sadly we lost edie wilky a few years ago. as sam farr mentioned, she predeceased don by a number of years. they were real team for equality, for peace, for disarmament, for protecting the environment, for promoting opportunity and fairness. they were such a team. so i hope it is a comfort to

his now -- his children, his grandchildren, all he loved, that so many people throughout the world, certainly in our country, mourn the loss of a consummate public servant, proud californian and proud american. may his legacy long endure in this house and may a challenge -- may it challenge all of us to do more and do better on behalf of america's working families. thank you again, congresswoman lofgren, for bringing us together. ms. lofgren: thank you, madam leader. it is wonderful to be able to, for those who served with don edwards and those who knew him by reputation, those who worked for him -- ms. pelosi: would you yield for just a moment? ms. lofgren: certainly. ms. pelosi: i would like to say how proud he was and thrilled he was that congresswoman lofgren was going to succeed him in the congress. he made that well known to all of us. so, his service continues, his leadership, in your excellent

service and leadership in the congress. ms. lofgren: thank you, madam leader. ow, i would like to turn to my colleague from california who was able to serve with congressman edwards for the first two years of her service here in the congress, and that would be congresswoman eshoo for five minutes. ms. eshoo: i thank the gentlewoman from california, the chair of the california democratic delegation, my dear riend and colleague. really i think it's bittersweet this evening. because we loved congressman don edwards so much and it's hard to imagine the world without him. he was the kind of human being that you wanted to have live

had forever. instead, his contributions to our nation, to the state of california, to his community, that is a record that will be revered for generations jeand rations and generations -- and generations and generations to come. there is a lot that's already been said about don, beautiful things that have been said about don. how he graduated from stanford university, the law school, how he began his professional career as an f.b.i. agent, and how he joined the navy as an intelligence officer. so he served our country in many different roles. and of course the crown of his public service career was right here in the house of the

people. the house of representatives. e was a small businessman, a business that his father owned and that he became part of during the 1950's. and then of course he was elected as a democrat, in fact, i still have, in my office, an invitation that don had sent out, i think it must have been for some fundraiser that he had, but the cover of that invitation has don edwards standing next to a very young president of the united states, john f. kennedy. and young children and those that helped elect john f. kennedy and anyone else that comes through my office very search remark about the picture. it'sing is that i cherish, my

staff cherishes -- it's something that i cherish, my staff cherishes and my constituents do. it's been said that he was elected to be be the president of the california -- to be the president of the california young republicans. that's a very press contingentous organization. and -- -- prestigious organization. and i can just see don, elegant in every way, he dressed magnificently, he had the most beautiful posture, the way he carried himself, he almost kind of glided down the hall. but he had a deep sense of humility about himself. we talk about his greatness and his goodness and he was never one to want to be served, his joy was in serving. and so he had more than a healthy dose of humility about him. don edwards had an eloquence