life deserve a decent budget education. republicans have $1 trillion in discretionary cuts with $7 billion in 2013 alone. this could devastate education in so many ways. the largest k through 12 program, title one, provides extra academic support to raise achievement of students at high poverty schools and students at risk of failure. this funding was meant to hire and train teachers. it supports proven education practices to 21 until students in more than 90% of all school districts and more than half of all public schools. the federal government provides about $1 billion to localities that educate the almost 1 million children who live on federal lands. mostly these youngsters are children of servicemen and women who live on military bases and children from indian country

ornativive american reservation. this funding supports special education for 7 million children. special education funding helps ensure that the nearly 7 billion children with disabilities have access to high quality public education. the federal contribution currently only covers about 16% of the average cost of special ed. it comes out to be about 1,760 per student, but it paks a big difference. this budget does not cut the educational budget function by much, but it has $17 billion of unspecified discretionary cuts in 2013 that could deeply affect education services. so this amendment will protect this funding from being cut by the republican resolution. and there are many ways to get our fiscal house in order

without stunting the next generation of americans. maintaining this for competitiveness. that's why i ask you to support today's youngsters and education funding. . >> there we go. mr. chairman and members, this weekend in austin, texas, a bipartisan gathering of patients and teachers will gather to save our schools. during the last state

legislative segment for the first time since world war ii, the state of texas failed to fund our schools and were paying a tremendous price. in a distract that has done very well on its stes and september more than a few of its graduates on to college, many of them first-time college students, there are 54 are classrooms twha now exceed the state's class size slimts where more and more schoolchildren will be squeezed into classrooms. with the tremendous cuts that have been incurred in the state of texas, now is hardly the time to reduce the am of monies that flow in federal aid, marly where reference to title one funding. republicans propose to block grant spital one in a way that would allow it to go beyond the

dmikically disadvantaged areas. funding that flows from the federal government to our schools is not enough to make up for the draconian cuts that have occurred in austin, but it is a way to reduce the impact of those cuts in some areas. personally, i believe we should be significantly increasing our investment in education from prek for our youngest citizens to post graduate, within of the best exports this country has ever had. if we are to remain competitive, though, with the rest of the world, we need a substantial investment in education. this amendment makes really very modest increases to keep pace with demands for education and avoids cutbacks that have been proposed by the republicans. i think it makes sense to nak this important investment in our children, in our future and not to see cutbacks that would only

add significantly to the horrible cutbacks that have already occurred in texas and in some other parts of the country. i urge adoption of the amendment. >> mr. amash is recognized. >> decisions about our children's education should be made under the local level and funding should be under the state and local authorities as much as possible. with $15.5 trillion of debt, we simply can't afford the federal government centralization of spending and decision making concerning our children's education. for these reasons, we should oppose this amendment. since 1965, overall funding for education has nearly tripled. today, the united states spends more than $10,000 per pupil per year with an ever growing share of education funding being borne

by the federal government. k through 12 has increased by less than $7 billion in 1980 to almost $38 billion in 2008. with the passage of president obama's stimulus pack ablg, the budget was almost $119 billion in 2009, nearly triple 2008's spending. the passage of the jobs package added another $10 billion to federal education spending. despite this record investment in public education by the federal government, the state of the fern education system is sobering. too many children are not reading at grade level. only 56% of african-american students and 56% of students are going to high school. topdown interventions are not the way to provide k through 12 children with a high quality education. the current structure for k through 12 programs with the department of education is

fragmented and ineffective. moreover, many programs are due politic tif or highly restricted, serving only a small number of students. given budget constraints and the context of the houston increase in spending, congress must focus resources on programs that truly help students. for those of our children who do make it and succeed in their k through 12 education, the difficulty of accessing quality affordable education is not over. in fact, their next challenge can be the most difficult. finding a way to pay for spiraling post secondary tuition. the federal government has some responsibility for rapid rise. college costs have risen at twice the rate of inflation for about 30 year fps these rapid increases would have been constrainted if the federal government had not stepped in so often to subsidize rising tuitions. the chairman ensures that the programs are sustainable and the students most in need can access

assistance. one program that the chairman marks is pell grants. the pell grant program has grown to a level that's difficult to susta sustain. ux pangss were included in 2007, the higher education act of 2008. the stimulus bill in 2009 and the student aid and fiscal responsibility act of 2010. these numerous expansions, coupled with the dramatic rise in the number of eligible students due to the recession have caused pell grant spending to more than double from $16.1 billion in 2008 to an estimated $36.4 billion in 2013. recent studies have demonstrated that the increases in pell grants appear to be matched one for one with increases in tuition in private universities. this increases the deficit while helping school administrators not needing students. this will lead to the program's collapse or cut services to eligible students.

returning funding and dpigs making to the local level, let's make programs more sustainable. please join me in voting no on the amendment. i now yield to my colleague mr. yokita. >> i thank the gentleman. if we could slow my slide, i appreciate it. i like to associate with the remarks from the je map gentlem michigan. many plain sight, we see what he was describing with the language that he used. since the 1960s, part of which was instilling a federal department of a education, we have seen, as depicted by the flat lines there on the bottom, we have seen reading scores not increase. we have seen math scores not increase. we have seen science scores not

increase. the one thing on this chart that we do see increasing, like a rocket ship is federal spending. so you would think that those who advocate for all the increased federal spending would have some math scores to show for it. would have some science scores to show for it. reading scores to show for it, but they don't. they can't. because they don't exist. more spending does not equal better education. what would equal better education is trusting people n. states, our local elected officials, our parents and yes, our teachers and principals which which i count mr. honda among them to get that money, to do what's right for our children. to let the families, the parents do what's right for the children and not some unelected, unaccountable, federal,

bureaucratic system that as the evidence shows doesn't do any good for anybody. before yielding back, i ask these two rhetorical questions. why in the world do the children of tomorrow have to pay for the education of today? that's what the spending does. i'm not going to pay for it. mr. honda isn't going to pay for it. it's those that don't exist yet that are going to pay for this. why do they have to pay for substandard education? with that, i yield back.

>> since my name was brought up, i probably hav education system those criticizing federal funding. it probably reflects more than just what we've talked about versus the achievement that you have there. so you can take statistics and make it into mistruths. let me tell you what this is all about. all this money isn't decided here and how to spend it, we're sending it to the leas, the local education authorities. if you don't understand that, then you don't understand the process of education. the federal portion of everybody's budget at the local level is about 8% to 9%. and that's funding that we're talking about here. we wanted to at least provide the kind of support they need at the local level. you're talking about before you say it.

>> the time for the yesman has expired. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those oppose say no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. call vote is r. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. garret. mr. simpson. mr. campbell. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert? no. mr. akin? no. mcclintock? no. mr. shaffetz? no. mr. langford? no.

ms. black, mr. ribble? mr. yulescamp, no. mr. yokita? no. mr. woodall, no. mr. garret? no. mr. price, no. mr. van hollen, aye.

ms. schwartz? mr. doggett, ye. bloom blumenauer, aye. mr. honda? >> an informed yes. >> mr. honda, aye. mr. ryan of ohio? >> aye. >> miss wasserman-shultz? aye. ms. moore, aye. ms. castor? aye. mr. schuler? aye. ms. bass? ms. bonamici? aye. mr. chairman? >> no. >> any other members looking to vote or change their vote? if not, the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 13 and the nos are

21. >> the nos have it, the amendment is not agreed to. now mr. doggett we've dropped this to ten minutes? >> that's correct. >> that's very kind of you. you have to call the amendment up, the clerk will designate the amendment. >> an amendment offered by mr. doggett relating to education. >> recognized for ten minute ps. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for those who say they want to empower more individuals to control their educational future and their destiny, this is a an amendment you should support. it quite simply makes permanent the american opportunity tax credit or the more education tax credit as i should call it. here's what that tax credit does. it means that a family that has a student who incurs up to $2,500 in tuition expenses or

textbook expenses the next tax year can take that $2500 as a direct credit off of their taxes. that's all that it does. this may not make a big dent at the tuition of harvard or some ivy league school, but if you attend austin community college, if you attend one of the alamo colleges like san phillips or san antonio college, this will cover just about all of your tuition and your textbooks. it means for many students a gate way into being a first-time student in a community college. and we're seeing literally millions oof working families that are benefitting from this tax credit, which will expire at the end of this year unless it is renewed. that means $2,500 per year for four years to apply for higher education or other post high school educational opportunities. i believe that this kind of approach is a good supplement to

what we do with pell grants and perkins loans. it's not a substitute, it's not a panacea, but it is a way that each individual can decide the education they want and have an incentive to get that education. one feature of this law as it exist exists today is 245 some of our most economically disadvantaged families that may not have a full $2,500 that they continue to owe in federal tax liability can get up to $1,000 as a refundable credit. that's particularly helpful to those families that incur tuition and text wook expenses and are barely getting by. i believe that this educational opportunity is not just about helping the students but making our economy more competitive and having a competitive work force. and with that, i would yield a minute to the gentleman from california who's spoken so eloquently on public education, to speak about how this works

with higher education. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleague. you know, it's been said just prior to this amendment that it's the kind of things that we're looking at affects a very small amount of people and the monies that we need to look at will affect a very small amount of people. the amount may be small but it's going to be effective and helpful for over 9 million families. there's an average of to you are a family, that's 36 million voters. and this is all going to help people to be able to get through school. if it's a community college, for many of these folks that i've run across, they're the first ones in their family or clan to be able to go to higher education. for these reasons, i would support this amendment. >> i yield back. >> chairman recognizes mr.

yakita a chance to respond. >> i understand that education is important. but under our constitution or a pragmat pragmat pragmatic be the government's job. there's a lot more we can be doing to benefit higher education, especially those truly in need. the chairman's remarks directs those resources to those in need. this is an ineffective way to achieve that goal.

families with incomes up to $180,000 are eligible. if you're a family making $180 a year, you can prioritize education yourself. and you ought to, and we ought to encourage it, but we don't need to subsidize it. mo moreover, it provides $5 billion to aid for families with incomes over $75,000 in 2009 alone. this tax credit was part of the 2009 obama stim mus plan that failed to keep its proms and is one of the 14 tax benefits that are currently available for college students and their parents to help pay for education. moreover, what this amendment would do is make permanent what many suspect is an education bubble. tuitions are increasing like the gentleman from michigan stated earlier. nearly twice the rate, i think

it was of inflation for other goods and services. and that's because the federal government is pumping money into these programs. and as a result, the tu petitions, all the ooer cother are going up artificially, unnecessarily. and so that's why this amendment although well intentioned is a bad idea. i will yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. >> education doesn't have to be handled at the federal level. we can move things back to the state level. and by doing that, we can increase funding for education we can improve education by getting the federal bureaucracy

out of it. one thing we're aware of is that it's becoming jumbled. it has too many things in it. we have tax credits given out to special interests, left and right. the more tax credits we add to the code, the more confusing it gets. and the more it helps the powerful and the wealthy and those who have the advantage of coming to washington, d.c., coming to our offices and lob lobbying us. let's make sure our tax code is as clean and simple as possible. the people who need the benefits the most get the benefits of the tax code. they're not just coming to sdk to beg for more and we can improve our tax code not just with respect to education, but also goods and services that people need so people can afford to live in this country. and i yield back to mr. rokita. >> i yield back to the chair. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> that's a curious response.

the same people that don't mind extending more tax cuts to billionaires even if it drives us further into debt object to giving a family of two teachers who have a combined income of $75 or $80,000 the right to take $2,500 off their taxes. this doesn't have to do anything with pleading with washington or state or federal, it's about individual responsibility and individual decision making. and i didn't hear any criticism of the tax credit other than the fact that president obama was associated with it. i understand you don't like president obama. you just criticized president lyndon johnson and the constructive efforts he made to strengthen education of this country. it's clear those who want to privatize social security don't like president roosevelt. i'm not sure you believe in the square deal either. i hope you're still for the land grant college program of president lincoln, but it's time we did something to strengthen higher educational opportunity.

and what could be more basic than giving people a tax cut that by your vote you would eliminate. >> the time has expired. the question is on the amendment from the gentleman of texas. all those in favor? say aye. >> all those opposed no. >> nos have it. a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. garret? no. mr. simpson? mr. simpson, no. >> mr. campbell? no. mr. calvert? no. mr. akin? mr. cole? mr. cole, no. mr. price? is mr. price, no. mr. mcclintock. no. mr. chaffetz. mr. stetzman. no. mr. langford? mr. langford, no. ms. black? ms. black, no.

mr. ribble, no. mr. flores, no. mr. mulvaney, no. mr. young, no. mr. woodall? no. mr. yhuelskamp, no. mr. van hollen, aye. ms. schwartz, aye. mr. doggett, aye. mr. blumenhauer, aye. ms. mccollum, aye.

mr. honda, aye. mr. ryan of ohio, aye. ms. wasserman-shultz, aye. ms. moore? aye. ms. castor, aye ms. bass? ms. bass, aye. ms. bonamici? aye. mr. chairman? no. >> the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 14, the nos are 20.

>> nos have it, the amendment is not agreed to. >> do you have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will report on the status -- >> the midwest working together. an amendment offered by ms. mccollum related to women's health. >> thank you. women deserved access to affordable health care. unfortunately before the women health care act, women were not guaranteed access. a woman was dpe nighed health care buzz she had a c-section. in florida, a woman denied coverage because she was given anti-aids education after a sexual assault. a senior could not afford her prescription drugs while in the medicare doughnut hole. a woman in south dakota could be charged $1,200 more than a man

for the same identical coverage. a woman in texas had her insurance rescinded because she was fighting breast cancer. a mother of three children with cystic fibrosis in utah was stuck in a low-paying job because she simply couldn't risk losing her employer's coverage. i could continue the rest of my time with stories like these, stories of women denied coverage because of so-called pre-existing conditions. but the affordable care act is already working to end this unfair discrimination. over the past two year, we have seen how this law has been improving access for women and their families. diagnosis of multiple lakcloer sclerosis can no longer max out. mothers no longer have to choose between taking their infant for a check-up and putting food