columbia to fund not just this scholarship opportunity, but also increased funds to fund their charter school as well as funds to fund the regular public education system. in that respect i wish we were similar to what's happening in the district of columbia but unfortunately we are not. i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. . mr. cicilline: i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can address this important issue. manufactures in my home state of rhode island and those across the nation are working hard and playing by the rules and they are suffering disproportionately because their counterparts refuse to play by the same set of rules in the global economy. one way chinese businesses cheap is by keeping their currency

artificially low so their imports are cheaper than u.s. goods. that's simply not fair and this practice must end. artificially low chinese currency contributes greatly to the global trade imbalance which puts u.s. businesses and workers at a significant disadvantage. chinese unfair currency manipulation has destroyed millions of good-pailing american jobs and jeopardizes the future of the american middle class. employment and manufacturing shrank from 20 million in 1979 to fewer than 12 million jobs today. in rhode island we experienced the loss of more than 30,000 manufacturing jobs in the last decade alone. despite these sobering statistics, the american manufacturing sector is in the midst of a resurgence. if this vital economic engine is to be sustained, congress must continue its investments that help manufacturers complete in the global economy. by doing that we can level the playing field. give them a fighting chance to

compete an speed up our economic recovery and create jobs. with so many factories shuttered, small businesses bearry hanging on, and rhode island workers continuing to look for jobs, we can't afford to wait any longer for the chinese to correct their unfair trade practices. that's why i'm proud to co-sponsor this legislation to end china's unfair currency manipulation because states like hawaii we have to fight back against countries like china that won't stick to obligations under international agreement and play by the rules. if our country is going to compete in the global economy, we have to guarantee that manufacturers are not disadvantaged by an uneven playing field in foreign trade. we must demand that china play by the rules. i thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i reserve my time so i can find another baseball metaphor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. mr. hastings: sort of like joe dimaggio was against vouchers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i'm

very pleased at this time, i would like to yield myself 10 seconds to explain we are still on the d.c. voucher manner, but the previous question is with reference to chinese currency. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from washington, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. madam speaker, the republican follies go on. the republicans have done nothing in 13 weeks in charge of the house to help americans get jobs. nothing to open markets. for businesses to expand. nothing to open up markets overseas for american workers and businesses to compete more fairly. while they hold the economy hostage, to their cultural war agenda, maybe we could do something to help the american people. i rise today in support of the effort to defeat the previous question so we can take a first

step toward addressing the egregious balance towards china's currency and our own. for too long the chinese have been playing unfairly in the international trade arena and this congress has to send a clear message, china must become a responsible player in multilateral trade. the chinese export strategy is smart, but subsidizing it by suppressing their currency is an unfair way to do it. the effort we are doing here is a good step and we should follow up by working together with our trading partners to bring a multilateral w.t.o. case against china on the currency issue. this commonsense legislation helps the commerce department do a fair job for making the multilateral mechanisms more available to u.s. business. we must send a clear signal that the american people expect that they will -- chinese will respect international agreements and expect fairness. after years of an unlevel

playing field, it is time to act and this motion to defeat it and bring it to the floor is the right kind of measured first step we can take now. i hope the republicans will join us in helping this economy. i'm tired of reading the constitution and all the silly things we have done for the last 13 weeks. when are we going to see anything having to do with job creation? i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: madam speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my very good friend from new jersey, the distinguished gentleman, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you. thank you, madam speaker, i thank my friend for yielding. some of the 15 million

unemployed americans no doubt got together with some of their friends this morning around the kitchen table and talked about another fruitless day of job searching and other seepless nights, another paycheck-less friday that's coming. i wonder, madam speaker, what they would think about what's going on on the floor of this house today. at a time when there are 15 million americans out of work, the house majority has decided to pretend that it's the district of columbia board of education. now, there are profound issues about the quality of schools for children in the district of columbia. i would be guided by their elected representative, miss holmes norton, who speaks for them but tragically does not have the right to vote on their behalf. she should have that right. but beyond that, what are we doing? this is a time when americans are struggling and suffering and

losing their homes. what we should be doing is coming together, republicans and democrats, on this floor to create an environment where entrepreneurs and small businesses can create jobs for the american people. we have a proposal on the floor right now that would say the following, let's stop china from unfairly manipulating its currency that puts american manufacturers at a disadvantage. it's estimated that one million manufacturing jobs could be added in this country if the chinese were made to stop their unfair practice of discriminating and manipulating currency. now, you may think that's a good idea or bad idea. i think it's a good idea, but why don't we take a vote on that instead of how to run the district of columbia public schools. that's a question that the voters of the district of columbia should decide for them selves.

what we ought to decide is to get our act together and get americans back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, again, madam speaker. i am not objecting at all to the concepts and comments about the chinese trade. i think that's a legitimate issue. has its time and place. perhaps not necessarily on this particular bill, but as an approach that the opposition, minority wishes to take, i can understand that. i do, though, have my baseball analogy still here and i'm not going to don't you di maggio, because that was made up. that was not a true one. it is true that casey stengel at one time talking about i think one of the best second baseman said i can't understand he doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, he doesn't stay out at night and still can't hit .250. even though a healthy lifestyle may extend a career it still has no ability or connection to the ability of hitting a curveball. but those kind of nonsec which turs are part and -- nonsec

which tures are part and parcel of the debate we are having. i find it personally very difficult to understand why anyone would oppose this bill which only expands choices for d.c.'s brightest and least financially blessed school kids. and does not subtract from school funding for d.c. public schools. in fact, it increases funding while keeping within federal budget disciplines. it increases the percentage of money going to the charter school program as well as to the public schools. this is a win-win-win situation. because it sends money to three distinct efforts. the regular public school, the charter schools which have a waiting list, more than ever before, and also this opportunity scholarship program which had a waiting list and will again as well. with that i still reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, he's absolutely correct. my friend, about the joe

dimaggio comment, i have been around long enough to remember the washington senators, i won't give him anything, one of my personal friends, played baseball with him, and i want to tell you some of the things that earl said to me when it wasn't about school vouchers. but i leave to the seriousness of the moment the remaining -- not remaining time but five minutes of my remaining time to ms. holmes norton, who has with great persistence tried to get clarity about taxation without representation. thank you. i yield five minutes to ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for five minutes. ms. norton: mr. chairman, you know in the later days of european colonialism, countries like france allowed some representation from the colonies.

because the whole notion of voting on the faith of the colonies with nobody there who could also vote seems even then to be a dilemma they could not live with. and i don't understand how any member of the house believes she has a right to vote on local education matters or any other local matter affecting any part of the united states, including the district of columbia. i note, mr. chairman, that mr. polis of our committee indicated that there was a county in colorado that had created its own voucher program. i respect that. because they didn't come to the federal government to ask that that local voucher program be funded. nor, madam speaker, did we.

i think every member of this house ought to ask, since we've had five years of a voucher bill, why is there no national bill on the floor? i think the gentleman from florida has said one of the good reasons, and that is certainly that the bush department of education found that when compared with the students in comparable schools in d.c., there was no, no increase in test scores in math or science. so there's a merit reason why there's no national bill. but there's another reason why. the majority doesn't have the nerve to put a national voucher bill on the floor because it knows that in each and every referendum, including the referendum in utah, my good

friend, from which my good friend comes, not once has such a referendum succeeded. i don't know why the majority thinks it can go home now and say i voted for vouchers when you your selves were against the use -- you yourselves were against the use of public money for private schools. i would not like to be in that town meeting where you have to explain why you voted for -- for a rule for $300 million for one district that did not want that money for that purpose. madam speaker, i very much resent the use of article 8 whenever the majority wants to move in on the district of columbia, with one of its pet ideas, or because it disagrees with some issue in the district of columbia. that's the absence of democracy.

it's one thing to have no democracy. it's another thing to dress your version of policy on another jurisdiction. that's why i have an alternative that i will be subs -- substitute that i will be bringing at an appropriate time. mr. chairman, in 1974, after 150 years, this congress finally said we have been wrong for most of the existence of our country in allowing no democracy whatsoever in the district of columbia d.c.. no mayor, no city council, we give up. we delegate self-government to you, we are out of your affairs. self-government means nothing if the district of columbia can still be a dumping ground for every pet project and pet idea of the majority. we have our own pet ideas and we

will insist on the respect for our own ideas and not yours. thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i'm going to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. . mr. hastings: i'm going to be the last speaker and i will yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: madam speaker, if i might just to give you some planning ability, i do have one other person coming down who wants to speak, as well as myself. i'd be willing to talk for a few minutes, in fact, i'd be willing not to talk for a few minutes. mr. hastings: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: with that, madam speaker, i'd like to yield something to myself -- no, i

won't yield something to myself. i'd like to yield as -- i have, madam speaker, can i inquire if i have around 15 minutes left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 15 minutes remaining. mr. bishop: i will yield 10 minutes if the gentleman from california wants it, otherwise i'll be happy to use what he does not use. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, first let me thank my friend for his superb management of this rule and to say that i have the utmost respect for my colleague from the district of columnia. as i say, since i reside here in the district of columbia, she represents me here in this institution and when i'm here, of course i'm a californian fist and foremost, but when i'm here i get her news letters in the mail and she and i have served on a commission together, bring being reform to this congress in the 1990's and i do have the

utmost respect for her. and that is one of the main reasons that we chose when she offered the one amendment to this measure to make it in order because there's been a commitment that speaker boehner and i and others have made that we want to have a free-flowing debate. and i think that the notion of concluding that somehow this is a cut and dried issue is really wrong. i have to say that i felt as i sat in the rules committee last night and listened to my good friend and i listened to mr. mcgovern, i was really saying, my gosh, maybe there is no support for this measure at all. especially when mr. mcgovern, the second ranking democrat on the rules committee, said, every city council member in the district of columbia is opposed to this measure. in fact, he said it not once but two, maybe even three times.

and then i was handed a list and i know that i've just been told that mr. bishop raised at the beginning, there are going to be lists on either side, but the notion to conclude, madam speaker, that we somehow are imposing the will of the majority on the people of the district of columbia, there's no support for this whatsoever, i would is what i inferred from what was offer ined the rules committee last night, was just plain wrong -- offered in the rules committee last night, was just plain wrong. i often cite the editorial work of "the washington post," but "the washington post" has editorialed strongly in support of this motion. why? because they're committed, as i believe we all are, democrats, republicans alike, i believe that all of my colleagues are committed to improving educational opportunities for our fellow americans. and i think that what we need to recognize is that educational choice is an important thing and that's why "the washington post"

has supported this. and then when one looks at the list of d.c. leaders, some currently holding office, some formerly having held elective office here in the district of columbia, and the notion that there's only one voice that's elected by the people of the district of columbia is an inaccurate one. the fact is the chairman of the city council, chairman at large, is a supporter of this measure. the former mayor, i recognize that he did not win re-election, i don't know that this was the determinant in the outcome of that election, but he in fact is a supporter of this measure. the mayor before that, anthony williams, is a supporter of this measure. mayorian barry, the former mayor, kevin chavis, d.c. council education committee, the d.c. school board member, and of

course the often cited d.c. school chancellor happens to be supporters, they all happen to be supporters of this measure. so that's why some elected, some not elected, some hold office today, some formerly held office, but i believe, madam speaker, that every single one of these people, along with the editorial pages, as i said, of "the post," "the journal," a number of other publications, lots of organizations, are very, very committed to ensuring the quality of education is improved in the district of columbia and, madam speaker, they are very, very committed to ensuring that we see the quality of education improve across this country. it's very important for us to do that and that's why i find it very interesting that the previous question battle that we're dealing with here is one that is designed to focus on the issue of international trade and creating jobs here in the united states. and i can understand there's a great deal of concern about the

fact that jobs have fled overseas. that's happened because of the policies of the united states of america. the fact that we have the highest tax rate on job creators of any country in the world. the fact that we have chosen over the last few years to sick you are -- stick our heads in the sand when it's come to market opening opportunities through trade agreements which have been signed by our past administration and the leaders of other countries is indication that we've chosen to ignore great job creating opportunities. and i'm speaking, these trade agreements, the ones that president obama said he would like to see us pass here in the house, first the korea-u.s. trade agreement, free trade agreement, which he talked about, and i'm grateful that he talked about the importance of colombia and panama. two agreements that were actually signed before the completion of the u.s.-korea free trade agreement.

now, madam speaker, if we were to focus attention on those items, plus reducing that top rate on job creators from 35% to 25%, that would do more to create job opportunities than almost anything we could do. and then we get back to the core issue here and that is education. we need to make sure that the united states of america, as we seek to remain competitive in this global economy, that we have the best educated young people and that's why educational choice, i believe, is critically important. so we're going to have an opportunity for debate, the rules committee has chosen to make in order and give 40 minutes of debate to my friend from the clict of columbia so we'll be able -- district of columbia so we'll be able to continue this exchange. i urge my colleagues voluntary vote -- to vote yes on the previous question and in so doing will be able to pursue tremendous, tremendous items like the pending three free trade agreements and reducing the top rate on corporate income, those on job creators,

so that we can generate more job opportunities in this country. and so vote yes on the previous question, vote yes on the rule and i believe, i believe that the underlying legislation will dramatically enhance the opportunity for young people in the district of columbia to have educational opportunities that they otherwise would not have. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: would you please tell me, madam speaker, how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has two minutes remaining. haste hafe -- mr. hastings: i yield one minute that have times to ms. holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from d.c. is recognized for one minute. ms. norton: no one ever said that everybody in the district of columbia or even every public official was against vouchers. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield?

i just said that mr. mcgovern in the debate last night said every city council member and then i was given this list and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. ms. norton: the present mayor opposes the bill, yes, the former mayor was for the bill, the largest demonstration of citizens since i have been in the congress was held when this bill was imposed on the district of columbia. you will ask people, if you ask people in the district of columbia, do you support from federal money supporting vouchers? a lot of them say yes. if you ask them the right question, would you want money for private school vouchers or for public charter schools, hands down, they will say, we need those lists of all of us trying to get into public charter schools and give the money to our public charter schools. nobody on that side of the aisle knows anything about the residents of the district of

columbia or they never would have put this bill in in the first place. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i will reserve and i will tell the gentleman from florida that i'm prepared to close when he is. mr. hastings: thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida voiced. mr. hastings: i shall conclude. thank you, madam speaker. i say to the chairman before he leaves the room that if any american corporation is paying 35% corporate tax they need to fire their accountants. madam speaker, if the people of the district of columbia wanted a school voucher program they would have created one without the interference of congress. it was allowed to expire for a reason. it didn't work. why the party of fiscal conservatism would support authorizing millions, three hundred of thousand, in new spending for a downright usefuls program with no offset -- useless program with no offset is beyond me. it's time for republicans to take their hands out of the internal affairs of the district and instead focus on what our

constituents sent us here to do. rebuild our economy and put americans back to work. at a time when our nation's schools and communities find themselves in dire fiscal straights -- straits, we should not be throwing money away to revive a program that has by all objective measures failed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. once again i appreciate the discussion, i appreciate my good friend from florida. if for no other reason, that all of a sudden people are now sending me baseball stories and analogies here. i have one from kasey single which i will save for the next time we join together here on the floor. madam speaker, it is fairly clear what we are dealing with in this particular bill. this is money that is within our federal budgetary discipline. we are talking with this bill

about money that would go to the public education system trarksdigsal public education system, in the district of columbia -- traditional -- system, traditional public education system, in the district of columbia. this is money that would go to this new opportunity scholshrp. once again, with -- scholarship. once again, the bottom line is still there are parents who wanted that program, there were parents who complained when the program was taken away from them by congress, there are parents who still want this program re-established. they want those options for their children. we have a choice here. if we act favorably on this bill we empower those parents. if we refuse to act favorably on this bill then we limit those parents and the choices that they seem to want. and that is one of those issues that is there. so, mr. speaker, in closing, i want to reiterate the fairness of this structured rule. i urge its adoption, along with the underlying legislation. i urge members to support this

rule which will allow the house to consider good legislation that affords bright and competitive d.c. students with an enhanced opportunity to pursue a higher quality of education while not harming the underlying public education system in the district of columbia. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution and those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. hastings: on that, madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. hastings: yeas and nays. 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 arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of

house resolution 186, if ordered, and approval of the journal by the yeas and nays. [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.]

1:45.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237 and the ncaas are 182. the previous question is -- the anyways -- nays are 182. the previous question is ordered. the question son adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion -- >> madam speaker, madam speaker, madam 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 and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. and members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 235. the nays are 178. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 86 rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal and members will record their vote by electronic device. this will be 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 308. the nays are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 309. the nays are 107. with one member voting present. the journal stands approved. the house will be in order.

the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, pursuant to house rule 186, i call up h.r. 471rk the scholarships for opportunity and results act and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 17, h.r. 471, a bill to re-authorize the d.c. opportunity scholarship program, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 186, the amendment recommended by the committee on oversight and government reform now printed in the bill is adopted. the bill as amended is considered as read. after one hour of debate on the bill as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in house report 112-45, if offered by the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, or her designee, which it shall be in order without any interveengs of any point of order, shall be considered as read, eanch shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled

by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 471, and include extraneous materials thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman may proceed. mr. issa: mr. speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to rise in strong support of h.r. 471, the scholarship for opportunity and results act. h.r. 471 is not new. but h.r. 471 is essential. it re-authorizes and makes

improvements in the d.c. opportunity scholarship program, which was created by congress in 2003, to provide eligible low-income district parents with an opportunity to send their children to a private school of their choice. but it does more. it also provides an equal amount of money for charter public schools which are greater in the district of columbia perhaps than anywhere else in the nation. and an equal amount for improving the public school system in the district of columbia. mr. speaker, this act gives twice as much money to the two categories of public schools, conventional schools, and chartered public schools than it does to the scholarship program. however the scholarship program is a focus of this bill, and it's a focus because this program has proven to be successful. in fact, 74% of all district

residents when polled favor the continuation of this program as to these opportunity scholarships. obviously among those who have had opportunities they would not otherwise have, those who have gone on to college and enjoyed benefits because of their opportunity to seek education of their choice, it is 100% valuable. mr. speaker, we have pursued regular order on this bill. we have gone through both the subcommittee and the committee process. we have had extensive hearings, and we believe this bill is absolutely essential. i will mention that pursuant to the goals of the republican house, we have made some austerity. originally this would have been $75 million. it is $15 million less because at this time although we would like to do more, we have to make those kinds of trimmings that are possible. still, mr. speaker, this is a jewel of the d.c. school system.

it is an opportunity for people to have the kind of choice they have in a few other areas. i want to personally thank the speaker of the house for bringing this piece of legislation and for all of his work through all of the years in which he worked so hard on the education committee to understand this program in a way that no other member does. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 471. let me be very clear, public funds should support public education. but this bill which would authorize $300 million to support education in the district of columbia, includes an authorization for the expenditure of $100 million over

five years to a tiny fraction of d.c. students who attempt private schools. we have been told that the purpose of this bill is to help d.c. children get a better education. the house republicans passed legislation earlier this year that slashed billions of dollars from educational programs across the country in h.r. 1, which passed the house in february, house republicans cut $5.7 billion from the pell grant program, $1 billion from head start, $757 million from federal supplemental educational opportunity grants, $694 million from title 1-a grants, and $100 million from the 21st century community learning centers. under these republican cuts, nearly 44,000 students from the district of columbia could see

their pell grants reduced. 700 will lose their head start placements. 500 to face reduced or eliminated after-school placements. and 500 will loose supplemental education services. remarkably now after voting to leave so many behind, the republican leadership wants to authorize $100 million in new spending just for private schools in the district as part of a $00 million organization for education in that one district. the majority does not even pay for any part of this $300 million bill. let me be clear on this point. there is no offset for this bill. for that reason h.r. 471 also appears to violate the legislative protocols issued by the majority with such fanfare at the beginning of this congress. so all the rhetoric supposedly

justifying massive cuts to education funding, all the talks about budget constraints, about tightening our belts, and about making sacrifices, all that goes out the window when the majority wants to give $100 million in taxpayer funds to private schools. also problematic is that the d.c. voucher program has not resulted in better student achievement. the program was evaluated and found that in 2010 there was no overall statistically impact on student achievement in reading or math. . by comparison, reading or math on d.c. own rule. the speaker did not consult with the district's representative or its elected

officials before introducing the bill. our committee did not receive testimony from the mayor of the district before we marked up this bill. and the republicans have not introduced a national voucher bill because using taxpayer dollars to fund private schools is highly unpopular and has failed in every referendum placed on state ballots. despite all of these arguments against the bill, to me the most significant problem is that it diverts funds away from educational programs that help all of the district's 70,000 students. instead, the bill would use a lottery system to award vouchers by 1.73% of district students to private schools. i know there are members on the other side of the aisle who are truly concerned about the education of our nation's children, and they have a sincere desire to help students of the district of columbia.

but we should help all the students. we should provide high quality education for all of them and we should continue improvement that raises all student achievement. i said it over and over again, the greatest threat to our national security is the failure to properly educate every single one of our children, every one of them. we should not adopt a measure that spends $100 million so that about 1,000 students can go to private schools. and as a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of quality public education, one who sat on a charter school board, i agree with the president's statement of administration policy. which opposes creating or expanding a voucher program in a search that the federal government should focus its attention and available resources on improving the quality of public schools for all students. because this bill does not do that, i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 471 in its current

form. mr. speaker, later during this debate, my distinguished colleague, congresswoman eleanor holmes norton, who represents the district of columbia, will offer an amendment to redirect funding for private schools to improve public education for all of the district students. this amendment is a thoughtful improvement and i urge all members to support it. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: it's now my pleasure to recognize the committee chairman on the education and work force for five minutes, mr. kleine. mr. kline: i rise in support of h.r. 471, which would re-authorize the d.c. opportunity program. it has provided an educational

lifeline and meaningful choices for thousands of district families. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. you know, everyone agrees now that our education system is broken. as we work to craft targeted reforms, we must support existing education programs that improve student achievement. the d.c. opportunity scholarship program is one such initiative with a proven track record of success. over the past seven years, this program has helped more than 3,000 low-income children receive a high-quality education at the private school of their choice. the department of education's own research confirms the program's success in increasing graduation rates to more than 90% in the low-income population of students previously trapped, trapped in underperforming schools. additionally, the scholarship program has improved parental involvement in education. four consecutive studies have shown parents of program

participants are more engaged in their children's education and more satisfied with their academic progress than parents of public school students. the evidence is clear, mr. speaker, this innovative program works and serves as a real alternative for parents who want to give their children the educational opportunities they never had. yet, despite this proof, the administration and some in congress are determined to destroy this groundbreaking program. without the d.c. opportunity scholarship program, thousands of parents will be denied an opportunity to make decisions about their children's education. equally troubling, thousands of children will be denied the opportunity to achieve their full potential leaving them unequipped to succeed in a 21st century work force. we must put children first and stop a minority from taking vital opportunities away from thousands of d.c. families. the program's received widespread support from washington residents, including three former democratic mayors,

several members of the d.c. city council, and thousands of students and parents. congress cannot turn its back and deny students a chance, a chance for a better future. as our nation fights to get back on the path to prosperity, we cannot afford to eliminate critical educational opportunities that will prepare our nation's youth for tomorrow's work force. all parents should be empowered to decide what school is best for their child. a quality education should not be a luxury available only to those who can afford it. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield five minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the district of columbia, congresswoman eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. norton: i thank the

gentleman from maryland for his terrific help on all we have done on this bill. let me count the ways. i strongly oppose h.r. 471 because it re-establishes a program that failed to improve academic achievement as measured by standardized reading and math tests. because it infringes on the local government's right to make decisions about quintessentially local education matters. because it was introduced without so much as consultation with any elected official from the affected jurisdiction, the jurisdiction i represent. because it provides federal funds to send students to religious and other private schools despite the absence of support for vouchers as demonstrated by the failure of every state referendum to authorize vouchers, including three in california and increases the deficit by $300 million, violating the

majority's own cut-go for discretionary authorization legislative protocols. although i am a proud graduate of the d.c. public schools and strongly support our public schools, especially given their great improvement, i have always supported public charter alternatives for those parents who are dissatisfied with our traditional public schools. children can't wait until public schools now in the throes in the race for the top are atop. i am proud the district of columbia have the largest charter school system in the united states of america with all of -- with having our children attending. parents and organizations in the district of columbia have made this alternative, not the congress of the united states. the existence and the phenomenal growth of our public charter schools have fueled the competition that is actually helped -- has actually helped

our public schools improve. the reason is because the charter schools and the public schools, unlike the voucher schools, are competing for the same local dollar. so today it is interesting to note that the national assessment of educational progress found that the d.c. public schools has woken up to the competition and now is the only one of 18 large urban school systems that showed improvement in the fourth and eighth grade achievement tests over the past two years. now, contrast this with what the bush education department found for the very program we will be voting on in h.r. 471, and i'm quoting, the department of education found no conclusive evidence that the opportunity scholarship program

affected student achievement as measured by standardized reading and math tests. yet, the program was established precisely to measure and improve performance of the lowest achieving students in our schools. charter schools, however, outperform the d.c. public schools and greatly outperform the charter schools. our public charter schools at the middle and high school level with a majority of economically disadvantaged students scored almost twice as high as their d.c. public school counterparts in math and reading and the graduation rate of charter school students is 24% higher than the graduation rate of our traditional public high schools and 8% higher than the national average.

yet, these public charter schools have a higher percentage of african-american students and of disadvantaged students than our public schools. they are entirely accountable. they can be closed and like public schools they have been closed. with this remarkable record, why in the world would anyone pick the district of columbia to impose a voucher program on? the only big school system that has set up an alternative public charter school system. if the majority were truly interested in our education agenda instead of their own they would do what former speaker newt gingrich did when he approached me about private school vouchers, i told him public opposition to vouchers in the city but not to charter

schools as demonstrated by a fledgling charter school program in the district that had attracted few charters but there was a district of columbia law. he worked with me, not against me, to introduce a bill -- could i have another -- mr. cummings: i grant the gentlelady an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized one minute. ms. norton: to introduce p.l. 134-14 which has the robust public school system that is now a model for the nation. the pattern of this congress could not be clearer. they began by stripping the district of columbia of its vote. they had done nothing but tried to take from the district of columbia with bill after bill. now they want to help us against our will. we reject the insult of your

help with the children of the district of columbia. we are not second-class citizens. we are not children. if you want to help us, give us the courtesy, have the good grace to ask us how we want to be helped. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, as it says in the constitution, to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the district, and that is what we are doing, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the whip of the house, mr. mccarthy, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccarthy: i thank the distinguished chairman. as i listen to the debate, people want to know if anybody was asked. you realize there are four times as many children who want

a scholarship than there's one needed for. those are the people we should ask. those are the people that have been asked. those are the people that have asked to be able to have a new life, a new direction and a hope that we all dream about in america. i will tell you this morning, like almost every morning when i'm in washington, d.c., we got that time we call home. as a husband and a parent, i call my wife and first thing we talk about is our children. we talk about our children about how they're feeling, how they're doing but more importantly how is their education, where they are going. the same question that every single parent as a member of this body asks. every member of this body that the parent doesn't care about what they will become, you care about what your children will become. the greatest opportunity you have for your children to expand all the dreams and hopes they have as an american is making sure they have the right education. but it's not just for a few or select.

we want to make sure everybody does. you know, last congress one of the most tough times i watched on this floor was the new obama administration and democratic majority where they worked to terminate this program. they prevented new children from participating in going so far as revoking 216 new children for a scholarship that had already been elected to the 2009 and 2010 school year. . we have an opportunity on this floor to do something different. we have an opportunity on this floor to actually make a correction. not a correction for you and me, it's a correction of the hope and a dream that a child can unleash and unshackle something that hold them back. it's a dream that they can rise to the occasion. they can have the foundation, they can have the ability that the country has always talked about. that's why i support the soar act. i believe these children can

soar higher. i believe these children can reach a new dream. and i do not believe in holding them back. for all those who sit there and still want more, i for one will join with them. support this bill and support a new hope and dream. it's not about what we will become, it will be about what the next generation in america can achieve. we want them to s.o.r. to new heights. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: in regards to what was just stated by the gentleman. we care about all these children and it would be helpful if they were not -- $5.7 billion was not slashed from the pell grants when these kids get to college. it is my honor to grant to the gentleman from iowa, mr. loebsack, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for one minute.

mr. loebsack: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chair, for yielding. i wanted to come to the floor today to say i think this debate is a distraction. i spend a lot of time visiting with schools and teachers and parents in my district. this debate does nothing to address what he this tell me they need. what they want is for us to work together. to re-authorize the elementary and secondary education act. and to fix the things that we know are wrong with no child left behind. if we care about improving education, we should be working to make our system more flexible and less punitive, which is something that both sides of the aisle agree needs to happen. i urge my colleagues to come together to work on the pressing education issues. america's decline in international rankings, unacceptable dropout rates, and the need to create a smart, innovative work force, prepared for the jobs of tomorrow. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and yb.

-- and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, no within has worked harder on this than my subcommittee chairman, mr. gowdy, i yield three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the distinguished chairman of oversight for his graciousness and leadership. mr. speaker, we have found consensus. sweet, elusive consesssuss, we found it. not in the final committee vote. that would be too much to ask. not even in the testimony of the witnesses who came before the subcommittee, but we found consensus among the members them selves. one after the other after the other who testified as to the power and the magic of education to transform not just their lives but generations of lives. i spoke with a distinguished member from the other side of the aisle, a gentleman that i

happen to like and respect very much and is one of the most powerful speakers in this body, and i will not call his name because the conversation was not public, but he recalled for me the day he was sworn into office. and how his father came to him with tears streaming down his face. and some of the tears were the tears that only a father can have who is delighting in the success of a child. but some of the tears were also the acknowledgement that it could have been the father and not the son had the father not been born in the wrong town in the wrong state, and, yes, in the eyes of our educational system of yesterday, the wrong race. it is that shared acknowledgement that education is the pathway to prosperity that makes me struggle with how someone can oppose this bill. the parents want it. they feel more vested. they feel like their children are safer.

mr. speaker, you should have seen the parents that came across political and cultural and racial lines to testify on behalf of this bill and the subcommittee. they want it desperately. the students want it. they feel safer. they feel like it's an educational environment that is conducive with their learning. their test scores are higher. but even if they were not, their graduation rates are higher. and as a former prosecutor who cannot remember the last high school graduate that i prosecuted, the simple fact that they are graduating from high school in and of itself is enough of a reason to support this. educational achievement is higher. educational attainment is higher. the parents want the same choices for their kids that the president of the united states and indeed most of us who are members of congress have for ours. even the united states department of education once lauded this program as an example of something that works

until someone or something told them to think otherwise. the residents of the district of columbia again crossing racial, political lines, overwhelmingly support this program. and the most insidious argument is also the most demonstrably false that somehow this program takes dollars away from the three sectored approach to the -- the district of columbia uses. the public schools will still be funded. the charter schools will still be funded. this provides a third alternative, a third choice for parents who desperately want it and need it. mr. issa: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gowdy: one of the reasons the public approval for our body is sometimes so historically low is we have a tendency to demagogue those with whom we disagree and create false dichotomies. this bill is no more about the independence of the district of columbia than anything else. the district of columbia does not think twice before accepting

federal dollars for the public school system, the charter school system, or host of other agendas. nor does the district of columbia think twice when it accepts pell grant moneys that allow an 18-year-old to go to georgetown, a private school, but will not allow a 17-year-old to go to a private high school. nor is this bill about whether or not someone believes in the public school system. i went to the public schools in south carolina. my wife teaches in the public schools in south carolina. and my son will graduate from the public schools in south carolina. but i will miss his graduation. like many of you have missed things in your lives because we will be in session. what i will not miss is the opportunity to throw a lifeline to kids who were born into poverty. we will give them the same choices and chances we had. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: thank you very much. mr. speaker, it is not a false dichotomy when one point --

through h.r. 1, $1.8 billion are shall slashed from the head start budget causing 218-220 students get a head start. i now yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. danny davis, congressman danny davis, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. i rise to join my colleagues in opposition to h.r. 471, the d.c. voucher bill. while i share the same commitment to improving the quality of education here in d.c., in chicago, and throughout the nation as a staunch supporter of public schools, i strongly disagree with vouchering public dollars to private schools and institutions. i do not believe that the d.c. public schools should become experimental labs for the rest of the nation.

as i have stated previously on a number of occasions, paying for school vouchers translates into viewer taxpayer dollars for traditional public schools which have the responsibility to educate all, and i emphasize all of the children. improving public education in the district of columbia as in the rest of the nation has been and continues to be a long and arduous task. it is an absolute priority of mine. however now is not the time to abandon our obligation to ensure the topnotch public education for all students by shifting federal dollars to private schools. i understand and commend the federal government for playing a critical role in providing the district with badly needed funding for improving education since 2004. but i never found any conclusive

evidence that vouchers have increased achievement, nor have i seen any evidence in any study that an overall school district has improved as a result of vouchers. if the federal government is serious about improving the quality of education for the city's 70,000-plus deservedly young minds, then we should place our resources toward educational opportunities for all. and i must add that in the district we have seen improvement during the last two and three years. while we didn't seek any real testimony from the officials of the district of columbia, our school officials and students in public schools, we did hear from delegate eleanor holmes norton, who represents the thinking of a

large number of washingtonans, and she has told us continued investment in d.c.'s public school reform efforts will yield far greater benefits for the city as a whole rather than spending millions of dollars on less than 2,000 students to attend private schools. i agree with delegate eleanor holmes norton. she represents the thinking and the people of the district of columbia. i urge that we vote down this voucher deal and support the amendment that would be presented by delegate eleanor holmes norton. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, it's a great honor to introduce the author of the bill, the speaker of the house, for the customary one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute the speaker:: let me thank my colleague for yielding and let me start by also thanking him

and the members of the government and reform committee for their work on this bill. i also want to thank our 50 co-sponsors and all the members on both sides of the aisle who are standing with us today. i also appreciate the efforts of our colleagues in the senate, particularly senator joe lieberman, who are working on similar legislation. today the house will have the opportunity to do something special for the future of our country. and i think just about every member would agree that we've got to do everything we can to help our education system. americans are concerned that their children won't be able to have the same blessings that they have had. and if we want to protect the american dream, there is no substitute for a quality education. my view's always been that education reform starts with giving children a way out of our most underachieving public

schools. of course that doesn't mean that we abandon those schools. it means we take some of the pressure off of them while they work to turn them selves around. we came together here about seven years ago and said, let's try something different. instead of throwing money at the problem, let's empower parents from lower-income families to choose the schools that are best for them. we wouldn't deny any school money that they had already been receiving. we would be injecting freedom and competition into a system that's caught up in the status quo. and we have a strong bipartisan coalition, including anthony williams, who was the mayor at the time, dick armey, who for years led this fight in the house paving the weigh for this program. he and i started working together on school choice in the early 1990's when we served on the education an labor committee together. we said, let's give the kids in

our capital city a real chance at success and a real shot at the american dream that they don't have. we thought to ourselves what do we have to be afraid of? well, as we turned out there was nothing we needed to be afraid of. thousands of families have taken advantage of the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. and there's strong evidence it's both effective and cost-effective. unfortunately the education establishment in our country sees this opportunity scholarship program as a threat. in reality this is an opportunity to raise the bar. because competition makes everybody better. i think if you look beyond the talking points and focus on the facts, you'll find that the d.c. program provides a model that can work in other communities around our nation. now, i think all of you know

this issue is important to me. but i'll tell you this, this is not about me. i'm proud to say that i supported the opportunity scholarship program from the get-go. but i'm even more proud of the fact that i had nothing to do with its success. for that we can thank the students and parents who have become more than the program's beneficiaries, they are its greatest ambassadors. . asking congress to do the right thing and i'll be submitting some of those for the record. you see, they know what it was like before. they remember living just blocks from grade schools but feeling miles away from them.

and all they did was ask us to have a chance to have the same kind of education kids down the street were getting. there's no controversial idea here. it's the american way. so if we're serious about bipartisan education reform we should start by saving this successful bipartisan program that has helped so many underprivileged here in d.c. get a chance at a quality education. i urge the house to support and save this important program. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, most respectfully and to our speaker, i know his intentions are very good and honorable, and i wanted to be clear on this side of the aisle, mr. speaker, that we care about every single child being educated and becoming all that god meant them to be, too, and that's why we oppose the $1.08

billion that was cut from head start in h.r. 1. the $5.7 billion from the federal pell grant program. and with that i grant to the gentleman from california, mr. miller, chairman of the -- ranking member of the ed and work force committee, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank for his discussion on this legislation on the floor. i rise in opposition to this legislation because i don't believe we can afford to spend $104 million on a program despite what's been said on the other side has been proven time and again to be ineffective and inefficient. supporting poor children is the right thing to do and particularly in this economy it's essential but that's not what this bill does.

if you really care about school reform you'll want to help our students, our future, you do it in a sustainable and systematic way. you can't arbitrarily throw money at a small group of students and hope against overwhelming evidence that your ideological will work this time. you can't say that a handful of students deserve special attention. you can't ask congress to vote for programs that the citizens of d.c. and the elected officials and the mayor have not asked for. you can't have a program that does not help children succeed. there are a number of concerns about this bill. first and most importantly, the program does not help the students succeed. just two weeks ago the republicans made harmful cuts on proven programs -- inefficiency, seeking to get rid of inefficient programs. if this is the standard, the d.c. voucher program fails the test. the d.c. voucher program does not increase student achievement or graduate students so they are prepared

to go to college or careers. in fact, four department of education studies over both administrations found that the voucher program has had no effect on the academic achievement of the voucher students. these findings are consistent with other private school voucher programs in milwaukee and cleveland. just yesterday the state test results show that voucher students in milwaukee's 20-year voucher program are actually performing similar or worse than other poor milwaukee students. the study mandated by congress about the d.c. voucher program says that very clearly that the use of vouchers had no statistical significant impact on the overall student achievement in math or reading. so what is the purpose of the expenditure of this money other than to prop up -- an inefficient, ineffective, ideological point of view about how these students might learn? these students are not going to the schools that will change the outcomes. these students are not graduating with the set of

skills that will allow them to succeed in college or career. but the fact of the matter is there are many public schools in the district of columbia that are in fact achieving those goals, that are working for those parents, for those students. the district of columbia has open choice. parents can go wherever. but we simply decided to take this federal dollars and put it into a program because on the belief that it worked in spite of all of the evidence that it's not working for these students. so why are we paying a premium of another $100 million in taxpayers' money to pursue this effort when it's on its face is not working? yes, you've done telephone surveys of parents and they said, i think i made a good choice. ok. you do telephone surveys of the students. are you any safer? the answer is no. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman another minute and a half. mr. miller: the students say, no, we don't feel any safer. a great deal is made about the choice of these parents, it's to be honored and to be

respected. what about the choice of the parents of head start students that made a choice to put their children into head start and an effective program that makes a difference when they relieved that program on whether or not they are school ready, whether or not they are prepared to succeed in fourth grade and eighth grade and 10th grade, a critical point when the student decides to drop out of school. the parents making a choice about effective education, they get cut, a quarter of a million of them. if they make an ineffective choice, you get funded. that's just not the way we need to do business here and that's not the way to do education reform. and that's not the way to incentivize the other schools that are struggling to achieve better results, to achieve better success for their students. if you're going to say we'll fund them, whether it's successful or not, we'll put $100 million into it because it comports with our view of the constellation.

that's the wrong way to proceed in this effort for these children and other children who will follow them. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. buerkle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. buerkle: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of h.r. 471, the scholarships for opportunity and results act because today as i stand here not only as a member of congress but also as a mother of six children and a grandmother of 11 children. i know from personal experience the process that parents follow when they're choosing which school is the best choice for their children. each child has different needs, different strengths, and as a parent reaches out to make that choice we can realize that school choice is not cookie cutter. it should not and it must not be. and who better to make that decision than the parents of

that child? who knows best the knees of that student? -- the needs of that student? certainly not the government bureaucracy. the sore act is about empowering parents to make the choice that's best for their own child. the act is about giving them the freedom to pursue educational opportunities not available to them in failing public schools. the parents of the d.c. public schoolchildren deserve the same opportunities as members of congress, secretary of education and the president of the united states. sadly, the parents of the children in the d.c. voucher program do not have the ability to pick up and move elsewhere for better public schools and they can't afford private schools. the d.c. system needs substantial and sustained reform. but that reform process does not have to come at the expense of the children who live in the district. i stand here and i encourage my

colleagues to support h.r. 471. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. bobby scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, our public schools need more resources and not less. this bill diverts funds that could be used for public schools in the private school vouchers. instead of helping public schools, the bill helps the privileged few who can both win the lottery and have the resources to pay the difference between the voucher and the cost of an education. that cost of education is usually more than just the tuition charged so the recipient not only has to cover the whole tuition but also has to get access to a charity or religious institution which will subsidize the cost of the education. many who win the voucher lottery find they can't even use the voucher because they

can't afford the remaining cost of education. and so we've heard a lot about the so-called choice of a private school education. that choice is only available to those who win the voucher lottery. so it's not a choice, it's a chance. and with that same logic we can solve the social security problem by just selling loto tickets. those who win the lotto will be much better off. and likewise, 90% of those who seek a voucher will lose the voucher lottery and so they don't have a choice even though they have chosen a lottery, they don't have the choice. they will remain in public schools and most schools will be worse because the money has been diverted. the evidence now shows that even those who win the lottery may not be better off. studies of the d.c. voucher program revealed there's virtually no improvement in education. and furthermore, those --

furthermore, those the program was supposed to help aren't the ones benefiting. those in failing schools represent a small portion of those who use vouchers. and many of those who use vouchers were already in private schools and many more would have gone to private schools anyway. the schools that these children attend with vouchers are not covered by the same educational accountability standards as public schools, and the students and employees are not covered by the same civil rights protections. so we should defeat this bill and channel these funds into the public schools in washington, d.c. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, sometimes you just hear something it's hard to believe. we're wasting money here in washington. the american people are hearing it first here today. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place the -- today's "washington post" article in that is titled "white house

ignores evidence to how d.c. school vouchers work." the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: thank you. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, dr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. gosar: mr. speaker, thank you, mr. chairman. our children are being let down. our education system is no longer the world's best. in the district of columbia they are facing an education crisis like none other in our country. according to some experts, the d.c. public schools spend over $20,000 per year on each and every student. despite this, d.c. students perform the worst when compared to all 50 states. one city -- study found that only 13% of eighth graders in the d.c. public schools were proficient in reading. this must change. many are wondering why congress is focusing on d.c. schools today. that is because the d.c. public schools are unique and that

they are under the constitution congress has the sole responsibility to govern over the district of columbia. with that in mind, it is our responsibility to ensure that we no longer allow these students to slip through the cracks. that is why i am urging my colleagues to support h.r. 471, the sore act. this bill allows low-income d.c. students a scholarship to attend a school of the parent's choice. 74% of parents in the d.c. support this plan because it's a-- it has achieved real results. while i believe that education is best on the local level, congress is obligated to fund d.c. schools. we can't afford to continue to ignore these students. they deserve a chance to attend better schools that achieve greater results. today, we have a golden opportunity to make d.c. public schools better. today, we have an opportunity to help students in the lowest

achieving school district in the country. today, we can give d.c. students the opportunity to succeed and pursue their dreams. join me in supporting h.r. 471. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: yes, mr. speaker, we yield two minutes to the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hirono. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for two minutes. ms. hirono: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to this bill to extend the failed private school voucher program in washington, d.c. in this time of budget strife and cutbacks for public school districts all across the country, this is the wrong time to take federal money away from public schools and give it to private schools. we're not evaluating -- i want to see the research on what works. despite claims that the d.c. voucher system would improve the academic achievement of d.c. students, multiple connolly mandated department of education studies have concluded that the program has

not improved these students' academic achievements in reading or math. further, the studies found the larger program to have no effect on student satisfaction, engagement, motivation or students' feelings of security. the studies found no significant impact on students' career aspirations, participation in extra curricular activities, home work completion, readiness or tardyness. students with special educational needs, students with needs will have less likely access to these tools. despite receiving public money under the d.c. voucher program, these private schools do not take off students. in addition, teachers at these private schools are not subject to the same certification requirements as d.c. public schools. this bill also makes an exception to the ma scombrort's own budget rules which --

majority's own budget rules which require that new funding must slash funding from somewhere else. this bill adds $300 million to the deficit without any such offsets. these kinds of exceptions make a mockery of their own rules, particularly when there is little evidence to support the underlying bill itself. i understand that many supporters are disappointed with the quality of our public schools. this says to me that there is common ground for members from both sides of the aisle to improve our public schools. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. -- the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. >> at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to my colleague from arizona, mr. flake, for his comments. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this is a fascinating discussion we're having here. a gentleman who spoke a while ago said that because this is a lottery and not every one of the children who wants in this program can get in the program, that it represents not a choice but a chance.

i could tell you, a lot of these kids will settle for a chance. i mean, give them a chance, give them a choice, chance, whatever, just give them the opportunity, however slim it might be, and the fact that they only have a chance and not all of them can get in the program speaks about the demand for the program. speaks about how many people actually need it and value it and want it. and we ought to expand it further and give more individuals a chance. i live in an area where there are pretty good public schools. my children, i have five of them, have either been in the public schools or are currently in the public schools. those public schools are better because of the competition around them. we have a robust charter school program in arizona. there are lots of them around. there are many choices for kids to have. the public schools my kids attend are better for it. and the same will hold true in d.c. as well. if you want to improve the public schools where children

typically attend, and most children attend, then offer a choice and a chance, competition and accountability does that. it does it all across the economy, it does it in every other phase of our lives. why we say it won't happen in public education is just beyond me. so i commend those who have put this forward. i wholeheartedly support it. i was involved several years ago in crafting the original one and i am very pleased to support this today and this will be good for all kids. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: may i inquire how much time is left on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 4 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from california has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. cummings: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes.

mr. payne: mr. speaker, i rise with great excitement. my republican colleagues have made a vow to offset new spending but they found a cause worthy enough to bypass this promise -- promise. my republican colleagues have rallied behind the sore act of $300 million bill without an offset. reportedly the goal of the bill is to give all students a shot to win the future, by restoring hope and building stronger public schools. this is truly encouraging, as it matches my goal as well as those of many of my democratic colleagues. however, i strongly disagree with the proposed solution. the $300 million bill will continue to -- the d.c. opportunity scholarship program which was ineffective. the department of education reports show the voucher program have no statistic significant impact on overall -- overall

student achievement, aspirations for the future, frequency of doing homework or attendance or tardiness rates. further, although built on the premise of choice, vouchers -- voucher schools can and do reject students based on prior academic achievement, economic background, english language ability or disciplinary history. with -- which significantly limits choice. this $300 million program which was proven ineffective is not the solution for the intended goal. to reach this goal we can begin by repealing the h.r. 1 cuts to programs that removed barriers for low income students such as title 1 programs, head start and trio programs. i urge my colleagues truly invested in the goal to reject these cuts to key education programs and oppose the sore act and earlier i heard one of the

persons o'on the other side talk about -- persons on the other side talk about persons who supported vouchers in d.c. most of the political persons who supported it either would defeat it, have less and have no more say. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: you know, mr. speaker, we've heard a lot of talk and it seems like most of the talk seems to be about how we're being unfair to the district of columbia by giving them money that in fact they don't really need. let me just be candid. the district of columbia gets all the other federal money that the states get in other cities, this is additional money. but here's the amazing fact. depending upon whose figures you use, each student in the district of columbia, they spend between $17,000 and $28,000

pursuant to. these opportunity scholarships go between $7,500 and $12,000. more importantly each student, and i'll agree that perhaps some of those students would have gone to a parochial or private school otherwise, but for those who leave the public school to take advantage of this scholarship, they leave all $28,000 behind and they leave with $7,500 in opportunity and some parent who cares enough to find a way to make up the rest if there's additional cost. many of the parochial schools mentioned that are high school equivalents of georgetown except they're not getting pell grants, they're getting this grant, in fact take this as the entire payment. so the truth is, this is a gift to the district of columbia in several ways. and i want it understood here today. because this is important enough for the children to have an

opportunity to opt out of the 51st -- when you look at the ranking of all the states, if district of columbia was a state, it would be 51st. if you rank it against the top 50 inner cities, it's still only at like 22nd. it is a failed school system with the second highest amount by their own figures per capita spent on students. and if you take other figures, they're far and away the most expensive school anywhere in the country. public school. so, mr. speaker, we've had a lot of talk about how republicans are cruel because we're funding less than the democrats would like and we're actually funding less on this program than they would have. the difference is they were simply handing $75 million a year for the next five years or at least for this year to the public schools with no strings attached while in fact we're breaking it into three pots of $20 million in order to allow

the public school to get something, which the speaker in this bill believes strongly they should get something, so they're net better off, another $20 million so that children can go to charter schools and let's understand something. if you go to the public school, they say you have choice, but the regular public schools have districts, boundaries, you can't exceed them. going to a charter school gives you an opportunity to cross town for the school of your choice. and the last $20 million, a mere -- $20,000, a mere $20,000 out of hundreds of millions of dollars in fact goes to these few lottery winners. and the gentleman on the other side of the aisle said rightfully so, it's a lottery. as a former businessman and i don't call recovering businessman because i hope to never forget the lessons i learned in business, if you came to the state of california and said, we'll give you, where it was $60 million or $600 million, but you got to take a small amount that have and put it out for lotteries and you ask the

voters in california would they take it, you'd get the same 74%, 80% absolute approval. if it was absolutely new money they would. but if you went to a businessman, if you went to somebody who had to understand how to make a dollar go further, there's no question what you would find. you'd find, let's do the math. i spend between $17,000 and $28,000 on each student. $7,500 in expanding these students -- opportunity scholarships, using -- if they were to use their own in-district money, for every time they hand out $7,500 they would relieve themselves of over $17,000. it means that every student who remains would have more dollars. the fact is it's a self-inflicted wound for the district of columbia not just to take all of this money, but to take additional money because every student who exits is an opportunity to have more for those who stay.

that's not the way public education thinks. it thinks in terms of how much do i get pursuant to, how many union teachers do i make sure i employ, how much union dues do i get? i'm sorry, but that's not the way the rest of america thinks, it's not the way the speaker thinks when he crafted a bill that was incredibly fair to the district of columbia and fair to many of the students who, yes, have an opportunity to get these few scholarships and god help us i just wish there were more because they wish there were more and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield to the gentlelady from the district of columbia one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. norton: mr. speaker, the majority has been obsessed with the -- with depriving the district of columbia with its rights ever since this congress opened. they have come out with their choice, their preference, for the people i represent.

if in fact the majority is correct, that this program has been so effective, i ask you, why you have not brought a national voucher bill to the floor so that your constituents could have the very same thing my constituents have? i know why. it's the height of hypocrisy. to put it on us and not bring a bill to the floor to give the same wonderful, wonderful opportunities to your own people. i have a home rule agenda in the amendment coming up, i challenge you, i challenge you to bring a national bill to the floor this session. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i'd like to inquire of the minority, do you have additional speakers at this time? mr. cummings: no, we do not. mr. issa: are you prepared to close? come we're prepared to close, mr. speaker -- mr. cummings: we're preast

prepared to close, mr. speaker. might i inquire how much time each side has? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 1 1/2 minutes left and the gentleman from california has five minutes remaining. mr. cummings: let me say this, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the ranking member said that basically this is a gift to the district of columbia. and, you know, the chairman of the committee. and i would appreciate it if he would take into consideration, while handing the district of columbia $20 million in vouchers, h.r. 1, which he voted for, would take from the district of columbia now, $2.39 million from the d.c. title 1 funding, $500,000 from the funding for the 21st century community learning centers, this is just from the district of columbia. $23.5 million from pell grants so that when these kids get through the system like he just

said they would be able to have some money to go to school. but h.r. 1 takes away $845 per year, that's a lot of money for a college student, $5.7 million from federal supplemental education opportunity grants, $3.29 million from head start programs which would disallow 700 students from going to head start. so when you talk about giving a gift, that all -- i mean, that's one thing. but just in pell grant as i loan you take away from the very people that you say you support. and, you know, i just want -- let's just be fair about this. mr. speaker, this is about every child. we want every child, i've said it in committee and i'll say it again. there's nobody on this side of the aisle who wants more for every child to have an education and have a good education than we do. and so hopefully this matter will be resolved, but the issue -- this is not the way to doed

it with that, mr. speaker, i yield -- but this is not the way to do it. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: you know, there has been a lot of talk about h.r. 1 and i think that's a bigger picture than what we're looking at here today. but it should be considered. republicans offered on this floor in past -- and passed, without the support for the most part of the other party, a continuing resolution. we have been responsible in trying to fund the government and we tried to fund the government at over 90%-some of what it would have been funded had the majority not changed and certainly at or above 2008 levels. but that bill died in the senate. everything seems to have died in the senate and yet it can be demagogued as though we cut. but you can't cut what you haven't done, and you can't cut

what you haven't offered an alternative for. we cut what was already on the books, $75 million, to $60 million. we did decide, the speaker's leadership, that we were going to keep this program which we believe works. at $20 million, it's just a fairly large pilot program. as one of the speakers on the democratic side so aptly said, you have to win the lottery, there aren't enough slots. you're right, there aren't enough opportunities for the district of columbia, but unlike what the gentlelady, the delegate from the district of columbia said, we don't have an authority to go out and do this as a national referendum. but more importantly, we don't have the money. this is more a matter of showing the benefit to states which may or may not choose and giving an opportunity to one of the worst school systems, most failed school systems in the nation.

students in the district of columbia in math and science and reading are typically 51st when compared to the 50 states. this is in fact a difficult area if you happen to be a student in this district. if you're like the president's family or his predecessor, his predecessor, if they have school-aged children, they don't go to public school, they go go to private school. that's pretty well-known. but private school offers opportunities and it offers choice. and, mr. speaker, this $20 million per year of special funding for opportunity scholarships is all we're talking about today. one of the speakers rightfully so called it $100 million over five years. the delegate from the district of columbia called it $300 million, but she was forgetting the other $200 million goes right where she wants it to go. the only thing we're debating over five years, will $100 million go to scholarship that

don't go to union school teachers that are failing a student in a system that is failing? we just lost the head of education here, ms. reeve, and in fact part of the reason she left is she saw a new administration that didn't seem to live up to the high expectations that the previous one did. that's a local matter. that's local control and local rule. we're not preempting that. they have a right to fail and they are failing. but congress has a right to at least intervene. and in closing what i want the speaker to understand and america to understand is in 1996 when chartered public schools were authorized in the district it was authorized by my predecessor on the republican side, mr. davis. he got it in and got it funded and he got it made law over the objection at that time of the people of the district. we've looked through our records and can find no broad support for this mandate. the district did not do

chartered public schools on their own. they did it with an act of congress, with help. i believe they should take the same suggestion. if they want to choose to disagree with the conservative extreme "washington post" so be it, but i think they have to begin to look at themselves more deeply, at those that they actually represent, those who voted for them but did not vote to have this money rejected. i urge strong support for this bill, for this opportunity for the few who win the lottery, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate on this bill has expired. does the gentlelady from the district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: yes, i have a substitute amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 112-45 offered

by ms. norton of the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 186, the gentlelady from the district of columbia, ms. norton, and a member opposed, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. first off, i have to correct the gentleman from california. the national charter school bill was created by speaker gingrich in partnership with me. he came to me and proposed a voucher bill. i asked him since the district had a local charter school bill if he would introduce instead a voucher bill -- a charter bill. we consulted with public officials, with the school board, with citizens. it was the only alternative to vouchers, and you can check with speaker gingrich.

now, my home -- my substitute would redirect the $300 million in h.r. 471, 50% to the public charter schools, 50% to the district of columbia public schools. if the majority wants to add $300 million to the deficit without an offset, then let it at least be on the basis of educational merit. then, it should be added to the public schools which had shown major growth. the only public school system of the 18 largest urban school systems that showed significant improvements in math and reading over the last two years. if you want to add to the deficit, then at least add to

it by giving money to our public charter schools which outdo the d.c. public schools and way outdo, of course, the voucher schools which show no improvement. the public, middle and high school schools scored twice as high as the public schools in the district in math and reading. and they have a graduation rate 25% above the d.c. public schools and 8% above the national average. this is where you would give the money if you had any interest in education in the district of columbia instead of your own parochial interest in making a petri dish of the pet project of a few members in the district of columbia. you would look at our public charter schools as the

alternative to the district public schools. 53 campuses amounting to almost 100 different charter schools. almost half of the children of the district of columbia, how did they get there? they voted with their feet. they are -- i mean, look at some of the names of these schools. washington latin school, washington math and science and technology. i myself appointed two students from washington math, science and technology to the service academy. early childhood academy. hospitality academy. howard university. middle school. that's a charter school. the kip schools. we got for of them. those are the top charter schools and some of the best public schools in the united states. a fee residential, residential charter schools. you have some money, you want to spend some money? here's the place to spend it.

the d.c. -- to show you what kind of alternative this is with almost 100 different schools, they got 19 new schools coming in 2012. people keep coming despite the improvements in the district public schools. they are going to have a preschool. they are going to have a preschool charter. they're going to have three new high schools. one an all-male college prep. one that focuses on public service. another that focuses on math and science. you want to talk choices, you want to talk creative choices, look at the district of columbia. we know how to create choices for ourselves. choices that our parents want. choices that our parents create and pay for because they want their own choices, not the choices of the republicans of the house of representatives.

in a democracy the choices of a self-governing local jurisdiction trump all other choices, and especially the choices of members who are not responsive to the people of the district of columbia who do not have to stand for election in the district of columbia, get a free ride as i do not. if you insist on adding to the deficit, then for goodness sake, re-enforce the hard work of our own parents and our own local organizations, commend them for the dazzling array of almost 100 public accountable charter schools they have created. relieve their long waiting list

which now contain thousands of students waiting to get into our charter schools. the district of columbia did not appreciate being an unwilling object of a republican experiment once with your cavalier defiance of our choices. we like it much less a second time around. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. who seeks time in opposition? mr. issa: i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 20 minutes. mr. issa: i want to yield to a gentleman who understands the gentlelady's passion.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gowdy: it is instructive, it is informative, not to mention ironic that there were opponents to the d.c. charter school system just like there is resistance to the opportunity scholarship program. indeed, mr. speaker, some of the very same people who rise today in opposition to the opportunity scholarship program and laweding the virtues of the d.c. charter school system once opposed that very charter school system. the charter school system is a success. i will acknowledge that. just as the opportunity scholarship program is a success. they are both successful because the parents in the district of columbia want choice. i hate to be redundant. i don't want to be the dead horse -- i don't want to beat the dead horse, although it's ok for the horse to return to the evidence and the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt beyond any reasonable,

statistical measurement the parents want this program, the students want this program, the community want this program, even some elected officials want this program. they don't happen to be ones we heard from the other side of the aisle today. reading scores are up. educational attainment is up. graduation rates are up. it bears repeating again, there is a myriad of maladies that are connected to the dropout rate in this country. and if all we do is get kids to graduate, it is worth it for this program alone if they just get kids to graduate. opposition to this bill, mr. speaker, make no mistake about this, make no mistake about this, opposition to this bill is political and not factual. and i'll say that because 18-year-olds in the district of columbia can take federal

dollars and they can go to notre dame and b.y.u. and they can go to stanford and they can go to baylor and they can go to rice. so why do with -- we oppose federal dollars helping 17-year-olds? let that sink in. 18-year-olds can take federal dollars and go to whatever private school they want to but 17-year-olds can't take federal dollars and go to any high school. explain to me that distinction. my colleague from the district of columbia is a passionate, zealous advocate for her constituents, and i commend her for that. genuinely commend her for her passion and her zeal in representing her constituents. but even her passion is no match for the passion of parents who hope for a better future for their children. even her passion cannot match the passion of the parents who

came to testify before our subcommittee that this is a lifeline, this is a once in a generation opportunity. and for us to say no to the opportunity scholarship program because of pure raw politics is wrong. and i would oppose this amendment, and i would ask my colleagues to support the opportunity scholarship program. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking -- ranking member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from is recognized for he -- the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me just say this, the last speaker said something that i found very offensively when he said it's about raw gutter politics. i personally resent that. and the reason why i resent it is because it sends a wrong

message what it's for. we can have disagreements but this is not about raw gutter politics. this is about standing up for every child. i've said it over and over and over again. and i as a product of public schools and my children who have gone to charter schools and public schools and i've sat on a charter school board and living in an area in baltimore where the -- where "the wire" is filmed, i can tell you that this is not about raw gutter politics. this is about the politics of lifting children up so they can be the best that they can be. that's what this is all about. and i've said it in committee and i'll say it over and over again. there's not one member of this -- on this side who does not care about every single child.

and when we talk about this program, this voucher program, one of the things that we need to consider is we're talking about right now, we're also talking about a charter school program with over $27,000 and counting and that affects a lot more people. what we're trying to do is help as many kids as possible. you talk about the graduation rates, the graduation rates for the charter schools are better than this voucher program graduation rates. and so what do we try to do? we need to be trying to address things in a most effective and efficient manner. and so it's easy to talk about gutter politics, but what we're talking about is trying to help every child. you talk also about how we can take this money, children can take this money when they get to college and go to various places, colleges, and you're

right. but the fact is that when you just voted in h.r. 1 to slash $845 per year and i see students every year, the board i sat on, the college board in baltimore, where kids for $845, that $845 would cause kids not to be able to attend college, period. so it's nice to lift them up and say, first of all, we don't give them -- we cut off money from the head start so they can't get the head start. we want children to even get to the point of being able to be in a position to go to high school. we also want -- but then after they get out of high school and it is not about gutter politics, after we get out of high school we want to make sure that they're able to have the necessary funding to go forward. and so i don't consider what the other side is saying one bit. may i have another minute, please, ma'am? just one minute. ms. norton: i'm pleased to give

the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cummings: let me be clear. i do not consider it gutter politics for the other side to argue what it's arguing. i believe there are philosophical differences and that's ok. and we will differ and i have never, not once, and i don't think anybody on this side has not once said that we don't all want to lift our children up. that's what america's all about. that's how we became the great country that we are. for every child and again i say it, the worse thing, the greatest threat to our national security is our failure to properly educate every single one of our children. leave no child behind. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. >> mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. wal much -- mr. walsh. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. walsh: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman. what are they afraid of? what are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, afraid of? let me second my colleague from south carolina respectfully. it is about raw gutter politics. respectfully, my colleague from maryland talks about standing up for every child. helping every child. what are they afraid of? why won't they help every single child? and it is politics. my colleagues on the other side can dance around any rationale they want to dance around. the evidence on this issue, we're beyond it. we are beyond having to debate empowering parents. we're past that. so what respectfully on the other side of the aisle is causing my colleagues to be

against empowering, and i'll emphasize the word, every, every parent? my colleague from south carolina says -- no, respectfully, no. my colleague from south carolina respectfully said raw gutter politics because my colleagues on the other side are scared to death of offending the teachers unions. and, ladies and gentlemen, and, mr. speaker, the teachers unions are scared to death of this scholarship program because look out, if this scholarship program demonstrates success, and it has, it will be modeled all over the country. and that respectfully is what scares the teachers unions, because they don't want kids to be able to escape. and my colleagues on the other side will answer, will answer to what they want. that's the politics that we're

talking about. we're talking about power. the power should go to the parents. plain and simple. every parent. charter school, public school, home school, private school, you name it. that's where the power should lie. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the district of columbia has 10 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from california has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. norton: -- ms. norton: to the gentleman who didn't have the nerve to yield to me, this bill, this bill of course -- mr. issa: mr. speaker. point of order. ms. norton: this bill -- mr. issa: mr. speaker, point of order. ms. norton: this bill, this bill -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentleman will kindly state his point of order. mr. issa: isn't it true that the house rules prohibit direct accusations about the intent or the personal features of somebody or in fact whether or

not they have nerve? the speaker pro tempore: the chair is not going to respond to a hypothetical question. mr. issa: and i'm not going to take down the gentlelady's words because it is too short a period of time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: the speaker before the last speaker wanted to know what the offense was. the offense is for the whole prerogative of the people of the district of columbia to decide on educational choices for their own children. that's what the offense is. now i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my dear friend from the district of columbia for yielding. one of the previous speakers said that he wanted to empower

the parents of the district of columbia. i agree. i think we should empower the parents of the district of columbia to elect a representative who has a vote in this chamber. why don't we start with that? the irony of the proposition that this bill is allegedly about empowerment of adults in the district of columbia and their children comes from people who i assume would resist the notion that the representative of the district of columbia should have a vote in this chamber. and let me bring up some very recent history. under our majority, votes in the committee of the whole were in fact afforded to the gentlelady from the district of columbia. on the first day of the new majority it repealed her right and the rights of others from the territories to vote on

matters in the committees of the whole. there is one issue in this bill. taxation without representation is tyranny. decision making without representation is wrong. the duly elected representative of the people of the district of columbia supports this amendment and opposes this bill. so do i, for that ran -- reason. i would suggest, mr. speaker, that tomorrow we should consider a bill re-organizing the public schools of cincinnati, ohio. because we had just about as much prerogative to do that as we do this. support the amendment, defeat the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. and as the gentleman from south carolina goes to the dais, we should bear in mind that home rule is not the right of the district of columbia to rule people's private homes and how they make their choices for their children. with that i would yield three

minutes to the gentleman from south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 471, the scholarship opportunity and results act and against the norton amendment. you know, coming from south carolina, for eight years in the general assembly, we debated the positive benefits of school choice. i've heard every argument. but what i have seen prior to 2009 is that here in d.c. school choice was a model for the nation as a very successful program. mr. duncan: we've seen the positive impact of injecting free market principles into an education system here in washington, d.c. we've seen thousands of students' lives change. we've seen them lionel up for a change as -- chance -- line up for a chance at a better life so they can escape a failing school and have the opportunity to reach their full potential. because all students learn differently. it is imperative that we empower

patients and that's what it's about, empowering parents to make choices for the education of their children. give them the ability to choose the best educational experience for their child, whether it's public, charter, private or home school. neither the state nor the federal government knows what's best for our children. we do as parents. parents know what is best for their children and parents and teachers should have the freedom to work together to find and create motivating learning environments that are necessary for every child to succeed. this bill restores to the parents the ability to make the right choices, that this administration, the previous congress, stripped away and it provides an escape from the failed bureaucracy system of the district of column -- bureaucratic system of the district of columbia. this bill brings more transparency and accountability to the program, raises the scholarship amounts for both elementary and high school

students as my colleague from south carolina says and caps the administrative cost. this bill takes a successful program and makes it even better. and does so without spending new taxpayer dollars or growing the size of government. in fact, school choice saves the government money while providing a better education for the children. it's my hope, mr. speaker, that other states will follow suit, even as school choice for working american students and families in washington, d.c., we have also seen its effectiveness in state it's like pennsylvania, arizona, georgia, milwaukee, wisconsin, florida, where the achievement gap between white students and minorities is disappearing. my home state of south carolina is debating school choice right now in their legislative session. creating a bill that would expand educational choices and opportunities for all children across my home state and i urge my fellow colleagues in south carolina to get the job done and pass that legislation. let me thank the speaker of the house for introducing this bill. thank you for your leadership on pa rental choice on behalf of

washington, d.c.'s, families and students who demand effective schools. i urge my colleague to vote no on the norton amendment and yes on the sore act and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: the gentleman cited a number of schools that he said choice had helped. there is no data showing that choice schools and there have been a few in the united states, have ever scored better than children in public schools. and since milwaukee was mentioned, let me indicate some news that had just come out today. results from the first administration statewide exams, the students participating in the milwaukee pa rental choice program showed lower academic achievement in choice schools than performance by students

attending milwaukee public schools. the result also shows that the milwaukee public schools in -- and choice schools have significantly lower achievement than the statewide average. but here you have a big city public school system that's doing better than the choice schools and that is what the data shows all over the united states, including the district of columbia, where the bush department of education specifically found that the children in the voucher schools did not show significant improvements in math and reading scores. i have detailed here this afternoon significant improvement of the d.c. public schools, the only urban school

system that has in fact shown significant achievement in math and science and particularly dazzling results in the d.c. charter schools. mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i don't have any more speakers, so i am -- i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time it's my honor to yield to my distinguished colleague from indiana, mr. pence, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue which is near and dear to my heart. as it is to the hearts of thousands upon thousands of families in the district of

columbia. i also rise in opposition to the norton funding amendment. the gentlelady knows, she and i worked together on occasion on issues. i know her devotion to the district of columbia, but we just have to respectful loedis agree on this issue. -- respectful loedisagree on this issue. i believe that the scholarships for opportunities act represents the continuation of one of the most important programs that i had the privilege of being a part of in washington, d.c. now, there's a suggestion that this legislation takes money away from public schools. i think because of the three-sector approach created by the original authorized legislation, district public schools and charter schools received a quarter of a billion

dollars in additional direct federal payment since 2004, both dcps and charter schools will get increased federal dunds under this -- dollars under this legislation. giving student and parents more choices because it denies funding to public schools don't even attach here on the facts. but beyond that, let me -- let me say the reason why i felt the need to come to the floor today, the reason why i so respect speaker john boehner's leadership on this issue is because of meetings i had in my office with oftentimes the teary-eyed parents of children in the district of columbia. i'll never forget last year meeting with moms and dads from the district of columbia, most of them from the minority community, who came to me with

tears in their eyes and said, i have one child that is in private school. i was able to take advantage of the d.c. scholarship. but because this administration in the last congress terminated it, i cannot give that other opportunity to their younger brother or sister. and they literally came to me at that time -- i was in a leadership position in the republican majority and said, please do something about this. and my heart went out to those families. and we had an election, and now we find ourselves in a renewed republican majority, and the speaker of the house of representatives today is a man who probably has a larger heart for kids as a former chairman of the education committee than maybe any other former speaker in the history of this institution. and so we find ourselves at this moment when i can say with no small amount of emotion, i

can say to those families, yes, we're going to put this scholarship back, we're going to say to the rest of your children that they deserve the best choice for their education al future as well. and it's a noble moment for this congress. you know, the old book tells us that whatever you do for the least of these that you do for him. i think this is one of those moments where we look at families that are struggling under the weight of some of the most beleaguered public schools in america and we're putting our arms around those families saying we're going to give you more choices, we are going to let you as parents, regardless of your race or income or status in society, we're going to give you the opportunity the

same choice for a public school as a private school and a public school and charter school as americans who have the means to do so can make. and let me also say i see this debate over educational choice, whether it's in the district of columbia or in my own beloved indiana. as all tied up in the debate over education reform that has been manifested throughout this country over the last half century and more, i mean, there was a day almost in my lifetime, just on the periphery of my lifetime when some stood in the schoolhouse door and said you may not come in. but we fixed that as a nation. and now there are some in the massive education establishment in this country who stand in the schoolhouse door and say you may not come out, you may

not have the same choices that other americans have simply because of your means and your condition in life. the scholarship for opportunity results act levels the playing field. mr. issa: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. pence: the sore act opens the schoolhouse door. it reopens the door for opportunities for these families and for their children in the district of columbia, and i believe it was before a model for the nation and it can be so again. and so i encourage my colleagues to join me in respectfully opposing the norton funding amendment but vigorously supporting h.r. 471. let's stand with those families , let's put joy in their hearts , let's create a boundless

future for their children, let's pass the scholarships for opportunity and results act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: i respect my good friend. i got to stand for and with the people i represent. if the gentleman wants to put joy in the hearts of my parents, i say put joy in the parties of his beloved indiana, as he said, by bringing a national vouchers bill to the floor so some of them may have choice that we did not ask for. i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the committee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: two minutes to the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: thank you very much. as i listened to our last speaker talk about teary-eyed parents, well, guess what, i see teary-eyed parents who want to put their kids in head

start. i just saw them last week at a town hall meeting. h.r. 1 slashes over $1 billion from head start. they're in tears too. guess what? morgan state university and in my district, by the way, a total of 20,000 kids will not get pell grants or have -- and get $4,500 slashed from pell grants. they're in tears. you know why? they'll drop out of school and many of them will not return to school because they don't have the money. they're in tears too. and i believe with all my heart that the speaker's intentions are good. you all hear me say that. to the opposite of that. but i say again i am trying to figure out how do we take the

dollars that we have and spend them in a most effective and efficient manner? and when we talk about the least of these, i really want to get that head start that i'm talking about. for the life of me, maybe i'm missing something, i don't see how on the one hand we talk about these children that we love and how we want to embrace them and how we want to embrace their parents and bring joy to their hearts but then take away the very money that would allow them to be able to get to where they got to go. i mean -- and so -- and you're right that many did -- there was a time when people could not get in that schoolhouse door all over this country. my parents, they would be riding the bus -- they would be walking to school for four miles and other kids would go riding the bus spitting on them.

may i have an additional 30 seconds? ms. norton: please to give the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. cummings: and so they weren't able to get an education. so all i'm saying to you, saying to you, mr. speaker, what i'm saying is that, you know, let's embrace all our kids. you know, i want for my colleagues' kids, mr. speaker, the same thing i would want for mine. and this program affects about 1,000 kids. just in charter kids, there's over 20,000 in the district. so i would just sport the gentlelady's amendment and i yield back. -- just support the the gentlelady's amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: can i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 10 1/2 minutes remaining.

the gentlelady from the district of columbia has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. issa: i yield myself a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, maybe we should just lighten up a little bit. you know, yogi berra apparently said nobody goes there anymore. it's too crowded, when referring to a restaurant that had long lines to get in. mr. speaker, we're finding a way to say a program isn't good because it has long lines waiting to get in. and oddly enough when it comes to the chartered public schools, it had been laweded on a bipartisan basis here, they, too, have no free rights to automatically go and they have lines. perhaps what we should be asking is -- on a bipartisan basis, what could we do to reduce the lines to both, to provide that opportunity to all the children of the district of columbia, and i will say one thing, and maybe a yogi berra-type way, if the democrats will come halfway to the center of the aisle to talk about how we can hit a reasonable number for spending, i will put everything on the

table, at least to my vote, to meet them at the half. all programs are so needy they can't be cut and complain even when we preserve a program, i can't do it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from the district. ms. norton: the residents of the district of columbia see a pattern here. the majority, again, by taking away my vote in the committee of the whole so i can't vote on any part of this bill this afternoon. then, they take -- try to take away the needle exchange that teach hiv-aids from being spread throughout the district of columbia. now, they're also trying to take away the choice of low-income women in two places of low-income women, in h.r. 1 and h.r. 3.

they introduced a bill to put their version of gun laws on the district of columbia, although the courts have found our new gun laws to be constitutional. this morning we hear that they're coming forward yet again with more to do to the district of columbia when they -- when they say they want to erase marriage equality bill. now, they say -- after taking all of that from you, we have something for you, something you never asked for. vouchers instead of funding, public charter schools. in we know you fund the charter schools as well. you -- if you want to fund something, fund what we want, not what you want. and if you want it, bring yourself a national bill right

to the floor. i can understand republicans voting against my substitute. they will argue perhaps that it adds to the deficit. but if you vote against my substitute, then i don't see how you can vote for 471, because it certain adds to the deficit too. and you will be voting for your choice, not ours. many of you have come under the banner of liberty, getting the fought out of even federal matters. now you're trying to get into a purely local matter involving our children and our local schools. if this were your district you'd ask us to defer to you. i'm asking you to defer to our preferences. the district of columbia asks to be treated exactly as you would want to be treated, as free and equal citizens of the united states of america, not as second-class citizens, not as children and certainly not

as the colonial subjects of the congress of the united states. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair will remind those to direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker in closing we won't fund failure -- mr. speaker. in closing we won't fund failure from this side of the dais. yes we're giving additional money to the failed public schools, yes we're giving additional money to a chartered public school system that tries valiantly to help those children trapped in those failed public schools. and yes we are going to make a continued small investment in children having an opportunity to find other alternatives. just as we do when children a little older get to go to georgetown or catholic university, with pell grants that in fact go to these parochial colleges.

the majority a year ago had planned on simply giving it all to union schools. to government schools. because the party of government was in charge. mr. speaker, an election made a difference. we consider ourselves and we try valiantly on this side of the aisle to be the party of the people. and we believe that the small amount of money to empower people, parents, to do something they choose and they stand in lines in, in lotteries, as the other side has said, to escape those schools and have an opportunity with scholarships. we believe they have spoken loud and clear and although the delegate will talk about elections and home rule, she ignores those long lines to get out of failed public schools, she ignores the hearings we had in which people came and said, please don't take our scholarships and, mr. speaker, she even ignores her own party and ignores what's in her own amendment.

mr. speaker, her amendment would leave 216 special cases that were denied still in for this year. her amendment would leave in the same as the democrats did when they closed out the previous bill, it would leave those already in school, in private schools, getting additional funding every year. and there's a reason president obama's children were not going to watch their schoolmates be thrown out because a successful program that allowed them to be side by side as peers rather than relegated to a failed school was going to be stopped. so all we're doing is keeping a program of hope alive for the district of columbia and i have never been so insulted to be told that if we give money we're bad and if we don't give money every other place the other side wants it we're bad. we are trying to do the best we can to give parental choice to failed school districts and with that i urge the defeat of this amendment that does nothing but retain the public school status

quo that has failed and the passage of the underlying bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. pursuant to the rule, all time is expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the district of columbia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. norton: 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 and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes

and ask for order in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the speaker pro tempore: i rise to a point of order. >> the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman's recognized for his point of order. >> mr. speaker, first permit me to state the point of order. i make a point of order against consideration of this bill because the legislation violates clause 10 of rule 21

which states it is not ined orered to consider a bill if it has the effect of increasing spening for the current year and a five-year window. c.b.o. estimates this bill will cost $500 million over five years without an offset in the bill. as you can see, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, we are setting aside pay-go and instituting cut-as-you-go which means if there is any spending called for in any new way or authorization, there has to be some cutting somewhere. that was said by eric cantor. the speaker said, under this cut gs go rule, if it is your intention to create new government program, you must also terminate or reduce spending on an existing government program of equal or same size in the same bill. as we know on january 5, there was a violation of the rules where members failed to take the oath when they were not in the room. on february failed to offer proper constitutionality

statement with legislation that was offered, on march 3, failed to require 3/5 majority for the passage of a bill to raise tax rates, on march 17, this house failed -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is are correct. the house will be in order. mr. weiner: we failed to make legislation available for 72 hours and now we are failing to include an offset for new government programs required under these rules under cut-go. in order for these rules to be taken seriously we can't simply say because it's a favorite program the speaker we're going to raise the rules. the rules are there for a reason. we voted on those rules and they were made an important part of the change of hands in this house. when you have statements like this by the speaker, they should be taken seriously. there is no argument that the funds in this bill are simply not paid for and i insist on my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is not aware of any point

of order against the pending measure that would be timely or cognizant at this time. mr. weiner: part of -- point of -- point of parliamentary inquiry. is it not under the rules of the house that under clause 10-a of rule 21, what the speaker articulated in this sentence is in fact the rule that if you have money that needs to be offset it has to be offset in the same bill and it is further not the case that in this bill it's been stipulated on both sides that this expense of $300 million over five years is not paid for. is that or is it not the rule of the house? the speaker pro tempore: the house does have a clause 10 of rule 21 -- the gentleman does not support a point of order at this stage in the debate. mr. weiner: the rule exists but did you -- but we don't need to follow. it the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is untimely. the point is that the gentleman

is untimely in his point of order. mr. weiner: but -- parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. weiner: it's a simple question. does the rule stipulated here exist? it is the only reason we're not following it is i didn't get to the floor in time? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not respond to political commentary. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to re-authorize the d.c. opportunity scholarship program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? the house will be in order. is the gentleman from maryland opposed to the bill? come come yes, i am, in its current form -- mr. cummings: yes, i am, in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies.

the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. cummings of maryland -- mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. >> mr. speaker, i object. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i object to the dispensing of the rule and i reserve a point of order against the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. cummings of maryland moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 471, to the committee on oversight and government reform with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith, with the following amendment. strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following, section 1, funding for d.c. public schools and d.c. public charter schools, a, general authority, from the funds appropriated under section 2, the secretary of education and this act referred to as the secretary shall be provide funds to the mayor of the district of columbia and this act referred to as the mayor, if the mayor agrees to the requirements

described in subsection b for, one, the district of columbia public schools for continued improvements in the academic achievement of all students in the district of columbia public schools. two, the district of columbia public charter schools for continued improvements and the academic achievement of all students in the district of columbia public charter schools, and, three, special education services under the individuals with disabilities education act, 20, united states code, 1400, for students eligible for such services in the district of columbia public schools, and the district of columbia public charter schools, b, condition of receipt of funds, as a condition of rereceiving funds under this act, the mayor shall, one, enter into an agreement with the secretary to monitor and evaluate the use of funds authorized and appropriated for the district of columbia public schools and the district of columbia charter schools under this act.

and, two, ensure that the funds are used by the district of columbia public schools and the district of columbia public charter schools for continued improvements and the academic achievement of all students in the district of columbia public schools and the district of columbia public charter schools respectively by using effective methods and instructional strategies which are based on scientifically-based research that strengthen the core academic program of schools identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the elementary and secondary education act of 1965. section 2, authorization of appropriations. there are authorized to be appropriated $30 million for fiscal year 2012 in each of the four succeeding years -- mr. issa: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the clerk may proceed. the clerk: of which, one, $10 million shall be made available

to carry out paragraph 1 of section 1-a for each fiscal year. two, $10 million shall be made available to carry out paragraph 2 of section 1-a for each fiscal year. and, three, $10 million shall be made available to carry out paragraph 3 of section 1-a for each fiscal year. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from california continue to reserve his point of order? does the gentleman from california continue to reserve his point of order? mr. issa: no, i do not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws his point of order. the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland may proceed. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, the final amendment before us would accomplish two important goals. first, the amendment would cut the funding authorized by h.r. 471 in half, thereby reducing the federal deficit over the

next five years by $100 million below what was -- $150 million below what was authorized for expenditure in the base text of h.r. 471. we heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side today, mr. speaker, but one thing is clear. voting for this motion will save $150 million over five years. so the question for my republican colleagues is will you be true to your promises to address the deficit or will you put these promises aside to support a pet project that advances a narrow ideological agenda? second, instead of spending money on a miniscule fraction of students who will receive a voucher, this amendment would target scarce federal resources to areas where they would do the most good. d.c. public schools, charter schools, and special education i.d.a. activities, as we have

discussed, students participating in existing d.c. voucher programs have shown no statistically significant improvement in reading or math skills. by contrast students in the d.c. public schools -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. cummings: by contrast, students in the d.c. public schools and charter schools have shown significant gains over the last few years. this amendment would direct funds to support schools that have been prove be to -- proven to improve student achievement. this amendment would also provide funds to support special education and idea-related programs in the district. idea funding goes toward critical services for children with disabilities. such as early intervention, support for special education teachers and assistance to help students gain access to suitable

curriculum. since the enactment of idea, achievement amongst students served by this program has improved dramatically. but more progress must be made. as mayor gray discussed monday in his state of the district address, d.c. has been unable to serve all of its special needs kids in public facilities and is paying nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to send students to nonpublic schools that can serve disabled students' unique educational needs. this amendment would help d.c. better serve students who need special education services in the public system. importantly let it be clear that if you vote yes on this motion, the amendment it proposes will be voted on immediately following this debate. that vote will be followed by a vote on final passage of the bill. adoption of this amendment will not delay consideration of this legislation and therefore i urge

my colleagues to vote for deficit reduction. i urge my colleagues to direct scarce federal dollars where they will do the most good. i urge a yes vote on this final amendment to the bill and with that i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. miller. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the point of this amendment is if you're going to spend this money in violation of the rules and you're going to create additional deficit, you at least ought to spend it in something that's effective. and that works for the children. and improves their educational opportunities. investing in the d.c. voucher program that is now run over a period of years, by every study that has been done on it says that these students are doing no better than when they left their school but we're spending $100 million to educate them. they statistically are not any improved over the performance of the school that they left. but we continue to spend the

money on the myth that somehow this is a model program that you would recommend cate all over the country. -- replicate all over the country. why would you replicate a program that is so inefficient and does not provide an education advantage for the students participating in it ? i understand there are parents who chose them to participate in the voucher program feel they made a good decision. but that's not a mark of whether or not they're getting the educational opportunity that they're entitled to. with mr. cummings' amendment, you can invest in what is working, you can invest in the public schools where african-american high school students have seen double-digit gains in reading and math. and in percentage of high school students have achieved advanced stat us in reading and magget has more than doubled. the percentage of special education students achieving proficient status has more than doubled. these schools, public and public charter schools, are working for the children of d.c. but the republicans will have you insist that what you really ought to do is take $100 billion

in new deficit spending and park it in this voucher program because of their commitment on the ideological basis. but not on programs that work. we ought to choose the programs that work for the children of the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll be brief. we spent an hour and 40 minutes discussing the bill and the amendment. and at least the delegate from the district of columbia attempted to move these dollars all to the public school system. this bill in fact not only denies the children who are in these programs today, some of them side by side with the president's children, but in fact it cuts funding for public education. under this motion to recommit, the funding for public education on a yearly basis would go from $40 million to $20 million. there would be less money in the

public school system in addition to being no money for opportunity scholarships. i oppose the motion to recommit, urge support of the underlying bill and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye.