Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply provides a sense of Congress that acknowledges the tremendous work done by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as it was originally conceived in Dodd-Frank and how it has been operating to this point.

The agency, Mr. Chair, has refunded $3 billion to 9.7 million victims of unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices in financial markets. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has helped people, and fraud has been curtailed. The message has been sent to the next generation of financial hustlers that there is a dedicated cop on the beat in financial markets.

The singular and dedicated mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is to protect consumers of financial products from schemes, and it inspires trust in our markets that attracts capital and promotes allocations of that capital to productive, legitimate endeavors.

My amendment affirms that the current management, oversight, and funding source, as enshrined in Dodd-Frank, are the best way to preserve the integrity and independence of the agency, and to ensure that we don't return to the bad old days and bad old ways that put the ox in the ditch by creating the 2008 financial crisis and the $700 billion bailout.

Now, H.R. 3193 openly acknowledges that it would alter and neuter the agency's mission because H.R. 3193 would rename the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to the Financial Product Safety Commission, removing, Mr. Chairman, consumers from the equation, both in name and function. It would subject the agency's funding to protect consumers to the unwieldy appropriations process, sequester, defunding amendments, instead of the outside independent funding vis-a-vis these powerful financial institutions.

Now, whether intentional or not, Republicans, Mr. Chair, have shown their hand with the omission of consumers in H.R. 3193, and despite the euphemistic name of the bill as written, this bill would alter the mission and cripple the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by focusing on protecting financial products rather than consumers. Whatever the intent, Mr. Chairman, consumers would be thrown under the bus by removing the cop from the Wall Street beat.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and his lavish explanations.

I just want to clear up some of the confusion and bewilderment that he seems to be under with regard to minority and Latin borrowers. He has said over and over and over again, he has talked about and referred to the Qualified Mortgage standards under the new rules. The new standards have just taken place, and I think that minorities will find that 95 percent of the mortgages today will fall within the Qualified Mortgage standards.

Now having said that, I will just say that the chairman should look at something other than the PATH Act toward restoring the GSEs, if he is very concerned about minorities, and I would join him in that to be able to get mortgages.

I would say that to clear up his bewilderment here, I just want to congratulate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because it is a fact that they have supported the refund of $3 billion to 9.7 million victims of unfair practices.

I agree with him: the purpose of this bill and the reason that they won't accept this amendment is because they don't want to go on record that they support consumers over all of these very, very lucrative financial products that are out there, and they want no regulation, which is why we saw the 2008 meltdown, the no rules of the road. They want to return to the days when there was an ability to drive the economy over the cliff and to deceive consumers to the point that they could and would become victims. So I can understand the chairman's reluctance to accept this language.

Mr. Chairman, I enter into the Record our defense of our claims, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Response to CoreLogic Analysis of Qualified Mortgage (QM) Standards,

CRL Issue Brief; February 20, 2013

The recently released CoreLogic report ``The Mortgage

Market Impact of Qualified Mortgage Regulation'' has received

a lot of attention due to its finding that 48 percent of the

mortgage market would not qualify as a ``safe loan'' under

new Qualified Mortgage (QM) guidelines.

Corelogic uses a ``waterfall'' analysis to estimate the

proportion of 2010 mortgage originations that do not meet one

or more of the QM criteria. While a waterfall approach is a

reasonable methodology for estimating the proportion of

recent originations that fall outside of QM standards, there

are problems both with the specifics of CoreLogic's model and

its assumptions about the expiration of the GSE exemption

that significantly undercut the usefulness of its estimates

of the impact of the QM rule.

Removes Loans with Credit Scores less than 640: As part of

estimating the impact of QM, CoreLogic included a restriction

on credit scores. Specifically, the waterfall analysis first

removes loans with credit scores below 640 ``because they

resemble subprime loans.'' In fact, five percent of

originations are removed solely based on this criterion. This

exclusion is not warranted because the QM guidelines do not

place any restrictions on a borrower credit score.

Assumes that borrowers who received loan products with

prohibited QM features would not be able to access QM-

eligible loan products in the future: The other waterfall

layers used to estimate the QM impact are: total debt-to-

income (DTI) ratio over 43 percent; whether the loan was

negatively amortizing, balloon or interest only; low- or no-

documentation; and loan terms of greater than 30 years. These

restrictions result in exclusions of 24 percent, 1 percent,

16 percent, and 2 percent respectively. Based on this

analysis,

while it might be reasonable for the report to estimate that

43 percent of 2010 originations did not meet these new QM

guidelines, it is not reasonable to infer that none of these

borrowers could have received QM loans if the rule had been

in place in 2010. While having a high DTI may be a difficult

barrier that many borrowers cannot overcome, the

disqualifying loan terms, such as negative amortization

options or terms of greater than 30- years, can easily be

avoided in most cases by simply

Re-structuring the loans into amortizing 30 year loans.

Similarly, most borrowers who received no-doc or low-doc

loans in 2010, the origination year analyzed in the report,

likely could have documented their incomes. Therefore, the

inference that none of the 19 percent of borrowers that had

disqualifying loan products could have received QM loans is

unwarranted.

Assumes the GSE exemption expires: As the report

recognizes, most of the 24 percent of loans to borrowers with

high DTIs are currently being made by GSEs or insured by FHA

and these loans automatically qualify as QM under a temporary

exemption (up to seven years). Indeed, the report

acknowledges that the impact of the QM rule on loans

currently being made would be'' minor''. Given the

uncertainties concerning GSE reform and mortgage finance that

will need to be resolved over the next seven years, it is not

at all clear that the temporary exemption will in fact end in

seven years.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and honor a young student from my district, Noah Katz, who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in his community. Noah Katz, who hails from Whitefish Bay, was named one of the top honorees in Wisconsin by the 2014 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. This is an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Katz is being recognized for his work and leadership with the organization ``Boxes of Love.'' The organization has 183 young volunteers who bake, pack and ship treats in order to raise funds to help others. They raised more than $63,000 and donated the funds to help build a school house through Free the Children and built a well in Kenya.

Mr. Katz should be extremely proud to have been singled out from the thousands of dedicated volunteers who participated in this year's program. I heartily applaud Mr. Katz for his initiative in seeking to make his community and the global community a better place to live, and for the positive impact he has had on the lives of others. He deserves our sincere admiration and respect. His actions show that young Americans play important roles in our communities.

The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards was created by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals in 1995. The mission is to not only inspire young people to volunteer, but to impress upon all youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued. Over the past 19 years, the program has honored more than 100,000 young volunteers at the local, state and national level and is the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service.

Youth volunteers like Noah Katz are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. It is extremely important that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contributions that these young citizens have made. Mister Speaker, I commend Mr. Katz for his work. America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future and shines because of his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a published composer, arranger, educator, guest conductor, saxophone soloist and composer in residence. He was a highly successful and visible educator at all levels of school bands both as a conductor and clinician. On February 2, 2014 Dr. Nicholas J. Contorno passed away leaving his wife Lucille, two daughters, Camille and Gina, and a host of family and friends to remember his many accomplishments.

Dr. Nicholas J. Contorno retired in 2007 after 24 years as the Director of Bands and Orchestra at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He received his undergraduate and master's degrees in music education from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and was granted a Doctor of Musical Arts Degree in Composition from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

He began his teaching career in 1961 as an Instrumental Music teacher in the Glendale (WI) Public Schools and also served as Director of Bands at Dominican High School in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin. He served as Music Curriculum Supervisor and Director of Bands at Kettle Moraine High School in Wales, Wisconsin. Dr. Contorno's work with young musicians made him one of the most beloved composers for concert and jazz bands.

Dr. Contorno was an A.S.C.A.P. award winning composer and arranger. He is listed in ``Leaders of Secondary Education'' (1972), ``World's Who's Who of Musicians'' (1977), and ``Encyclopedia of Band Composers'' (1991). As an active professional musician, he performed with the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, Holiday on Ice Orchestra, Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey Circus Band, Jimmy Dorsey Orchestra, and Les Elgart Orchestra. In addition, he performed with many national shows and artists, including ``Annie,'' 42nd Street,'' Linda Ronstadt, Natalie Cole, Manhattan Transfer, Vic Damone, Johnny Mathis, Mel Torme, and Sonny & Cher, to mention a few. His many honors include the Hugo Anhalt Music Achievement Award (1973); National Band Association Outstanding Jazz Educator Award (1982); and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Music Alumni Achievement Award (1990).

Dr. Contorno also held memberships in numerous professional organizations, such as the American Federation of Musicians--Local 8, ASBDA, the National Band Association, and the Wisconsin Bandmasters Association. He served on the board of directors of the Festival City Orchestra of Milwaukee and the Waukesha Symphony Orchestra. He was the musical coordinator of Festa Italiana-Milwaukee, Wisconsin from 1982 to 1998, served as the Musical Director/Conductor of the First Brigade Civil War Band of Wisconsin from 1970-1982 and The Milwaukee Concert Band from 1996-2002. In addition, he served as guest conductor of the Goldman Band of New York and the ``President's Own'' United States Marine Band. Dr. Contorno has a music school named after him in Gonaives, Haiti.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to a tribute to Dr. Nicholas J. Contorno. Dr. Contorno's contributions have greatly benefitted the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District, the State of Wisconsin and the global community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this compromise bill, although I congratulate the people for working very hard on it. But the change in the heat and eat option is not just a little technical change; it is a change that has a freezing, chilling impact on every single SNAP recipient in Wisconsin. It not only increases bureaucracy, it decreases SNAP benefits to Wisconsin families whose benefits were cut already in November.

I am deeply concerned about the concrete hurt, hunger, and, quite frankly, the frigid cold that we impose today on thousands of low- income American households, including seniors, children, and the disabled. As many as 255,000 SNAP cases in Wisconsin will be affected by this change.

How do I explain this to the women, children, seniors, and disabled in households how this ``technical change'' is minor when they stand to lose $90 a month in benefits? When you consider what they lost in November, $90 a month to a poor family is not a ``technical change.'' It is a lot of money. It is more than $1,000 a year.

The price of food is not going to go down, nor is the price of fuel, nor is the purchasing power of the poor going to go up. SNAP benefits already do not meet nutritional needs throughout the month, and this change will mean that real food will be off real tables and out of the stomachs of current recipients. The proposed cut on top of ARRA resulted in a 9 percent drop in benefits allocation to Wisconsin. It is just too much.

In the heat or eat States, that is as much as 11 percent of all beneficiaries. In one step, we imposed new administrative costs on those States and make it harder to keep SNAP more responsive. Kids were off school 2 days--2 days--this week because of the frigid, dangerous cold. And throwing these families back to heat or eat is the wrong thing to do.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit is very simple, as the Clerk stated. It will ensure that nothing in this bill shall be construed to authorize any party to violate the medical privacy of any woman, including the victims of rape or incest with respect to her choice of or use of comprehensive health insurance.

Here we are today, Madam Speaker, on the day of the State of the Union when long-term unemployment insurance has lapsed, debating a recycled bill that attacks women's health care. This is truly an out- of-touch moment for the majority.

The legislation under consideration today fundamentally lacks compassion. Women's health advocates have expressed strong concerns about its impact on women's right to privacy when it comes to their medical care and decisions. This bill could have damaging effects on women who have been raped and victimized by incest, who suffer from debilitating illnesses like the one that the gentlelady from California described, Vicky, who want nothing more than their right to make their own personal health care decisions with their own private insurance.

I have heard people continuously say that this is a recodification of the Hyde amendment. We all abide by the Hyde amendment. This bill seeks to strip women of their rights to have insurance even in the private insurance market. That is why I invite my colleagues to join me in passing this motion to recommit today, to ensure that we do not unintentionally eviscerate protections that are fundamental to women's health and liberty.

We are greatly concerned about this legislation, that it would force women in private health insurance to have to ``justify'' their need for a full range of reproductive health care services even if their life is in danger or if they have been the victim of sexual assault or incest. This legislation, again, could remove the option for a health insurance company to choose to offer comprehensive women's health services.

Many of us remember, some of us on a very personal level, the egregious history of this issue. Many of us remember the shame and stigma that women--victims--faced, and still face when they come forward to seek services. Depending on how this bill is implemented, a woman could be required to provide extensive documentation to save her own life or even prove to her insurance company that she was assaulted. What will happen? Will she have to go to court, Madam Speaker? Will there be an IRS audit?

Madam Speaker, there are just so many unanswered questions, and the answers could have meaningful consequences for women across our entire country.

What kind of proof would a woman need to exercise options for health care? Who gets to determine whether or not a woman's sexual assault was a legitimate rape? What kind of intensively private information would be required to establish this proof? Who in the insurance company or other entity would be equipped to make a ruling on the validity laid out in the bill?

Oh, we remember our history as women, of humiliation and public degradation that forced victims of rape or incest to stay in the shadows rather than to get the health care they need and deserve, or to seek justice against their attacker.

This motion to recommit simply makes sure that we uphold our history of protecting the confidentiality and medical privacy of women, upholding women's constitutional right to health care, particularly those who are victims of terrible crimes. I urge my colleagues to adopt this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore you and the House majority to reach across the aisle to find common ground, to reach out their hands to fix our broken immigration system.

Last summer, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate came together and passed comprehensive immigration reform with a strong bipartisan vote, a vote of 68-32. That is like a super-duper majority. In fact, one poll last month showed that 63 percent of Americans--two-thirds of Americans--support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Business leaders, chambers of commerce, labor unions, faith groups, immigrant families, law enforcement officials, and Americans of every race, creed, color, and ethnicity all across our country applauded our Senators for reaching across the aisle. For many, it really gave hope and a belief in our government that we are still capable of putting aside political posturing and of building consensus around the difficult issues that face our country.

But today, as I speak, Americans are asking: What happened? They are confused as to why the House of Representatives can't do the same thing that the Senate did and pass immigration reform. They are even more confused as to why the House can't even dignify the issue with a simple up-or-down vote.

Those people have not gone away, Mr. Speaker. Oh, no. In fact, today, the call to action is still as loud and clear as it has ever been.

Just yesterday, I visited the Fast for Families movement on The National Mall, where faith leaders had actually been fasting for 22 days--22 days with no food. Some were hospitalized to safely break the fast per the doctor's orders, but others pressed on. Replacement fasters stepped up, including our own Representative Kennedy, who, in the legacy of his grandfather, Bobby, acknowledged the need to embrace the immigrant issue.

So I ask my colleagues in the majority, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: What are we waiting for? Our job creators want reform. Our workforce wants it, and our spiritual leaders say it is the right thing to do. Overwhelmingly, so do the American people.

The facts are so clear that reform will tremendously benefit all of our country. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has followed the money, and it estimates that immigration reform will increase the gross domestic product by $700 billion in 2023 and by $1.4 trillion in 2033; but here we are today, facing government shutdowns and sequester levels that eviscerate services that so many vulnerable Americans rely on.

This is where we are stuck. It has been 5 months since the Senate passed its bill; yet we have only 6 days scheduled until the end of the year, and we haven't had one serious vote on immigration reform. Americans have put their differences aside for the common good of our country, and they expect us to do the same thing in this, our beloved democracy.

Once again, I want to reiterate that I stand here, ready to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in order to move our country forward. I applaud my brave colleagues on the other side who have already taken a stand and have put politics aside, and I encourage more of my colleagues to answer that calling and meet us halfway.

The American people are fed up with the status quo and gridlock here in Washington. Let's come together and strengthen our businesses, our economy, our workforce, and our families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my absence from the House for votes on the evening of November 18, 2013, due to a medical issue. I would like to submit how I would have voted had I been in attendance for the following votes:

Rollcall No. 588, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (H.R. 2061): I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 589, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, a bill (H.R. 272) to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense joint outpatient clinic to be constructed in Marina, California, as the General William H. Gourley Federal Outpatient Clinic: A Joint VA-DOD Health Care Facility: I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Annie Jane (Blakely) Jackson who will celebrate her 100th Birthday on Monday, November 18, 2013. The community will join with Annie J. Jackson to celebrate her centennial on Saturday, November 16, 2013.

Mrs. Jackson was born November 18, 1913 in Hopten, Alabama, was raised in Adamsville, Alabama and moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1945. She found work at the Cudahy Meat Packing Company and was also employed at the Veteran Hospital for two years. She later found employment with the American Can Company where she worked for twenty- three years prior to her retirement from the company in September, 1976.

Mrs. Jackson was married to the late Junior Lee Jackson for 32 years. Junior Lee Jackson was the owner of Party House Tavern for

nearly 30 years and as an entrepreneur was able to employ many people in the community. Mrs. Jackson is the mother of three children-- Jonathan, Arlene (both deceased) and Valerie; grandmother to Venus and Raven.

I have literally known Mrs. Jackson all of my life. She is a charter member of Mt. Moriah Baptist Church, Milwaukee, Wisconsin since May of 1956, my church home. There were 17 members when the church was incorporated and today she is the only living charter member. Mrs. Jackson was an active member in the church; she served on the Usher Board and Mission Board and was the very first Mission Board President. She is now confined to a wheel chair and is unable to attend church services but continues to be supportive both spiritually and financially.

Mrs. Jackson volunteered for many years at Lutheran Social Services agency calling the elderly to determine their needs and refer them for necessary services. Cooking and fishing are her most favorite things to do. She has already begun preparation for Thanksgiving dinner; she has cleaned thirty pounds of Chitterlings. It gives her great joy and happiness to be able to cook the entire Thanksgiving dinner for her family, then sit down at the table to eat and thank God for all of their blessings.

It is an honor for me to acknowledge someone who continues to contribute so much to Milwaukee and the 4th Congressional District. She set a strong example of leadership and excellence as a member of her church and for the entire community. She is a Milwaukee and Wisconsin treasure and I value her service. Mr. Speaker, that is why I rise to honor and celebrate Mrs. Jackson's 100 years of life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to give congratulations to Lauri Wynn, recipient of the 2013 James Howard Baker Award. I am truly honored to pay homage to someone who has contributed so much to Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin.

I have known Lauri Wynn for over 30 years, well before I began my legislative career in the Wisconsin State Assembly. Ms. Wynn was an educator for many years in the Milwaukee Public School System. She continued this service at the state level becoming the first African American President of the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), Wisconsin's statewide teachers union. Lauri Wynn worked with Lloyd Barbee on school desegregation. As both an educator and president of WEAC, she influenced the lives of thousands of students many of whom went on to become leaders themselves in the areas of politics and economic empowerment.

Ms. Wynn was an active participant in the ``Freedom Walkers for Milwaukee'' in the 1960s and marched with Father Groppi in the struggle for open housing and school desegregation. Additionally, she was very active in the NAACP. Lauri Wynn was also a Special Advisor to Governor Tony Earl.

Ms. Wynn's activities included assisting African Americans in obtaining political office, obtaining employment and becoming leaders in every area of civic life. She did all of this without seeking personal gain or public acknowledgement. She has supported the Community Brainstorming Conference from its inception with her attendance and input. Ms. Wynn has been a fearless leader and has been dedicated to advancing the interests of the African American community.

I know that Lauri Wynn is a strong example of leadership and excellence for her children and grandchildren. She is a Milwaukee and Wisconsin treasure, and I value her service. Lauri Wynn, thank you for your service to the 4th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize this October as the 26th anniversary of Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the United States. Every day women across our nation live in fear of being abused by a partner. An estimated 1.5 million people in the United States fall victim to domestic abuse each year and one in four women will experience domestic violence at some point in her life. Like a cancer, this abuse knows no limits and crosses all ethnic, socioeconomic, and party lines.

For years, the consequences of domestic violence were ignored or minimized, but our nation has since witnessed many advances to protect and support victims of domestic abuse. The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed into law this year, will be critical in strengthening the ability of governments, law enforcement, and service providers to combat domestic violence.

But the effects of domestic violence are far-reaching and plague generation after generation, so we must continue to work hard to intervene in ways that fit individual victims' needs and prevent future violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting stronger public policy initiatives to meet the overwhelming need that remains for victim services and a range of domestic violence programs. As community leaders, we must pursue every opportunity for domestic violence education, advocacy, and prevention services. These are the means by which we can help turn domestic violence victims into survivors and prevent future domestic abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to give congratulations on the retirement of my District Director, Lois O'Keefe. This is truly a bittersweet moment for me. I have known Lois for over 20 years just before I began my legislative career in the Wisconsin State Assembly. She has been a volunteer, an employee and most importantly a friend.

I am happy that Lois will begin a new journey after having such an illustrious career as a public servant. Lois O'Keefe has been employed by two U.S. Senators, Senators Proxmire and Kohl and a U.S. Congresswoman. The labor movement has also been an important part of her career. She was appointed as the Regional Representative of the Secretary of Labor for the Midwest Region in Chicago. During the Clinton Administration, Lois O'Keefe served under Secretaries Robert Reich and Alexis Herman. She also served as a union organizer for the Service Employees International Union representing workers who cared for the elderly. It is clear she has a passion for government service.

Lois O'Keefe also has a passion for working with youth. She ran the REACH Youth Program at the Milwaukee Private Industry Council and worked with the Milwaukee Job Corps to start an internship program in my district office.

Lois also has lived the reality of many women, juggling work and child care issues to return to school when her four children were young, ages 7-14. She earned both a BA in Political Science and an MA in Industrial and Labor Relations. After nearly 10 years on my staff serving as a caseworker and then District Director, I wish you well my friend.

While you have closed this door, another one is opening for you so that you may pursue life at your own special pace. Lois can now travel the world, which is something that I know she has wanted to do for a long time.

Lois O'Keefe, thank you for your service to the 4th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Arnold L. Mitchem, the founding president of the Council for Opportunity in Education. On October 1, 2013, Dr. Arnold L. Mitchem stepped down and assumed the position of President Emeritus.

Dr. Mitchem has been a voice for low-income, first-generation students, individuals with disabilities, adult learners, and veterans throughout his entire career. The mission of the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) is to advance and defend the ideal of equal educational opportunity in postsecondary education. COE is the core advocacy and professional group for the federal TRIO programs, which consist of nearly 2,800 federally funded college opportunity programs at more than 1,000 colleges and universities nationwide.

Dr. Mitchem's knowledge of grassroots organizing and understanding of the political landscape at the local, national, and international level has propelled COE to become the ``voice for college opportunity.'' He introduced the concept of ``first-generation students'' through his Congressional testimony in the late 1970s--and the term was incorporated into the Education Amendments of 1980. Dr. Mitchem has testified before Congress more than a dozen times to share his expertise on education reform, the importance of a quality education, and student loan issues.

Dr. Mitchem is a member of the Executive Committee of the European Access Network and serves on the Board of Trustees for Marquette University. He is a former trustee of the College Board; past president of the Committee for Education Funding, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition of national education associations; and served on INROADS, Inc.'s first national board. Dr. Mitchem is also the recipient of both the 2013 Award for Advocacy of Independent Higher Education from the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities' Award of Excellence (2013).

Because of his tireless advocacy for underrepresented students, Dr. Mitchem was awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, and honorary doctorates from 10 universities. His writing has appeared in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Forbes.com, The Huffington Post, and numerous other print and online publications.

Dr. Mitchem began his career on the history faculty at Marquette University, where he was later named director of Marquette's Educational Opportunity Program. Dr. Mitchem served in that role until 1986, when he moved to Washington, D.C. to assume the presidency of the Council for Opportunity in Education. He holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Southern Colorado, did graduate work in European history as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow at the University of Wisconsin, and earned a Ph.D. in foundations of education from Marquette University.

Mr. Speaker I am honored to recognize Dr. Mitchem for all he has done to improve the life outcomes of disadvantaged students. He has left an indelible mark in the lives of so many, including my own. I feel blessed to call him my mentor and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge you to turn away from this destructive path of threatening the full faith and credit of the United States Government as a means to extort political concessions and to subvert the democratic principle of majority rule. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to become the Speaker of the House and not spokesperson for a fringe cult within the GOP caucus.

The Affordable Care Act is settled law. In fact, the negotiation for any change to the Affordable Care Act is possible and perhaps even desirable under so-called regular order, and that goes for the other ransom demands that the GOP has made.

Now, of course, the reason for this crisis, this shutdown of the government and the debt crisis, has now shifted from repealing or delaying ObamaCare to vague demands for negotiations. We have seen a laundry list, Mr. Speaker, of other so-called demands: approval of the Keystone pipeline; concessions on payments to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; tort reform; repeal of job-killing regulations, that is, protections for clean air and clean water.

The latest demand is Republicans passed a bill to create a superdupercommittee that includes instructions that the committee can only resolve our budget crisis by considering spending cuts and entitlement cuts, but no new revenue. In other words, Mr. Speaker, you don't really want to negotiate. It is just obvious from your words and deeds, Mr. Speaker, since you, Mr. Speaker, have blocked negotiations 18 times over the past year.

Mr. Speaker, you are putting the country through this ``shut-er- down'' theater that you called for in the last Republican campaign, in the last cycle. ``A nuclear weapon'' is how Warren Buffett characterized failure to raise the debt ceiling.

Let me say that again. The world's most respected financial markets expert compared this now familiar Republican tactic as a weapon of mass destruction, a weapon that is ``too horrible to use.''

Let me quote Yalman Onaran in Bloomberg:

Failure by the world's largest borrower to pay its debt,

unprecedented in modern history, will devastate stock markets

from Brazil to Zurich, halt a $5 trillion lending mechanism

for investors who rely on Treasuries, blow up borrowing costs

for billions of people and companies, ravage the dollar and

throw U.S. and world economies into a recession that would

likely become a depression. Money managers, economists,

bankers and former government officials interviewed for this

story, few view default as anything but a financial

apocalypse.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, you continue to take default off the table. Meanwhile, even the discussion of default is driving up borrowing costs for the U.S. as investors demand higher yields to buy short-term U.S. Treasury bonds. Short-term borrowing costs have doubled and now are at the highest levels since late 2008. Heaven help us if you, Mr. Speaker, actually drive the U.S. into default.

Think about this: the $12 trillion of outstanding government debt is 23 times--23 times--the $517 billion Lehman owed when its bankruptcy sparked the 2008 financial crisis. The full faith and credit of the U.S. debt is the collateral for banks, financial contracts, and repurchase markets throughout the world, the collateral that stands behind global finance and investment. It is why we are the world's reserve currency. Any default by the U.S. will have very real and extremely serious consequences and trigger a self-inflicted global financial crisis.

In my mind, Mr. Speaker, the full faith and credit of the United States is not open for negotiation. I urge my colleagues to cease using the debt ceiling and economic calamity as a political tool and vote for a clean CR and debt limit bill.

Mr. Speaker, the definition of ``farce'' is: a foolish show, mockery, a ridiculous sham.

Now, this Head Start funding bill and cry for providing a head start for our low-income children is indeed a false start at this 22 percent sequestration level. The politicians' mantra that education is the key does not pass the laugh test where our babies are locked out and out of luck--no LIHEAP, immunizations, disability education assistance. This is a key to what--a key to a government careening toward default? It is a government that has defaulted on the future of our children.

Let's shut down the shutdown.

Madam Speaker, today's consideration of H.J. Res. 75 is a sham, a masquerade, a charade, and it features this relentless drumbeat and parade of pretentious concern for suckling babes and lactating women.

Who do you think you're fooling? You're not fooling the National WIC Association. After all, they have watched the Appropriations Committee of this majority vote out up to half a billion dollars in cuts in the WIC program for these 8.6 million suckling babes.

And what of these lactating women? I breastfed my kids; and I tell you that when you cut $40 billion out of food stamps, women cannot produce milk because they won't have fresh fruits and vegetables and lean meats.

And what about the siblings of these children--school-age children who are the 210,000 who rely on free lunch that this bill does not address?

Madam Speaker, I would hope that we would not deny 859,000 children, elderly, and disabled. Enough of this carnival. Let's get off this merry-go-round and reject this chicanery.