Taxpayer Repayment Act of 2009

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to rise in support of the Financial Services and General Government 2010 appropriations bill, which includes total funding of $24.150 billion.

This is a bill that we worked on cooperatively with our ranking member, Jo Ann Emerson, and I want to thank her for her work that she has put into this bill, for her friendship and her all around goodwill. We had helpful input from our subcommittee members and a productive full committee markup where all members had an opportunity to offer amendments and to have them debated and considered.

This is a bill that we, as a Congress, can be proud of. The agencies that this

bill funds touch the lives of all of us, and the funding is directed to those programs where we believe the American people will derive the most benefit.

You have had a chance to look at the bill and report and to see the specifics of how the money for the 2010 fiscal year have been allocated so, in the interest of time, I'm not going to present a lot of detail regarding each program and agency. Instead, I would like to briefly highlight the five important themes that were addressed throughout this bill.

The first of these is rebuilding the regulatory agencies designed to protect investors, consumers and taxpayers. A significant increase of $76 million above 2009 is provided for the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is the agency that combats financial manipulation, fraud and deceptive practices. It has not been vigilant enough in executing these duties in the past few years. The increase provided will allow the SEC to hire approximately 140 new employees to strengthen their oversight capacity.

In addition, the Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumers in financial matters, will receive $33 million more than in 2009.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which plays an important safety role in our product decisions, will also receive increased funding.

Funding is strengthened for several of the Inspector General offices included in our bill that are charged with making sure that regulatory and financial agencies are doing what they're supposed to do.

With regard to the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, the bill requires the Treasury Department to provide reports so that we know how Treasury is addressing those parts of the financial crisis over which it has been given oversight responsibilities.

A second major theme of the bill is to make sure capital and other assistance gets to small businesses and low-income communities, not just to large businesses and the wealthy. Funding increases are directed to the two key agencies which play important roles in this area. The Small Business Administration receives $236 million more than last year, and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund receives $137 million more than in 2009.

Our third priority of supporting equitable and efficient administration of justice in the Federal courts is met by well-directed funding increases that allow our courts to keep up with the costs and growing workloads.

The fourth theme is to provide for fair and effective collection of taxes. Full funding is provided for the President's request for the IRS, which includes a substantial increase for tax enforcement to close the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid. We also help our taxpayers meet their responsibility by including resources for the IRS to provide assistance in person, over the phone, and on the IRS Web site.

Our final priority is to meet our obligations to the Nation's Capital City, Washington, D.C., by including payments to address high-priority needs. We reduce undue interference in local affairs by dropping numerous restrictions on the District that do not apply to other parts of the Nation. For example, we dropped the prohibition on use of local D.C. tax funds for abortion, thereby putting the District in the same position as the 50 States by leaving that decision up to the elected government of the District of Columbia.

Beyond these five priority areas, our bill touches the lives of Americans in other ways as well. For example, we assist American farmers by clarifying language from last year's bill regarding trade with Cuba and the requirement for payment of ``cash in advance.'' We also provide increased funding for Drug-Free Communities coalitions who work to reduce problems of youth drug abuse in their neighborhoods and communities.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank staff on both sides of the aisle who have made tremendous contributions to this process. All the staff, both majority and minority, have worked long hours with dedication, and I would like to extend my personal thanks.

So let me end by saying that I believe this is a good bill that merits your support. It directs funding to improve the services that our government agencies provide to our constituents as they invest their savings, purchase products, start small businesses and pay taxes. It addresses the needs of our courts and our Nation's Capital City. I would ask for your vote in favor of its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the full committee and the most famous Chicago Cubs fan in the Nation, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I can certainly appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's frustrations, and he raises an important issue. I will work with the gentleman to ensure that the District of Columbia reviews security procedures at the New Beginning youth facility and works cooperatively with local leaders in the State of Maryland.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes now to a gentlewoman who, notwithstanding some of the things you see happening on this House floor, is really the only Representative from Washington, D.C., Ms. Norton.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who by the way was the strongest leading voice in having us put language in this bill that says that any TARP money has to be explained to the Congress on its use and all kinds of reports come back to Congress.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and also wish her, on behalf of the House, a happy birthday.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

I yield 1 minute to my friend and leader, the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Israel).

Could I inquire as to how much time is available?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes for a colloquy to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I agree with the gentleman about the importance of protecting the integrity of the vote count. I was pleased to incorporate HAVA funding in the bill and language in the committee report stressing the importance of gathering information on voting system malfunctions, of making official paper ballots more accessible, and of verifying election results. I hope jurisdictions will use these funds to deploy the most accessible paper ballot voting systems and will audit their election results to ensure the integrity of our democracy.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

The gentleman is most welcome, and I look forward to working with him to make sure all States have the funding they need to implement these critical election protection measures.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a member of the subcommittee and one of our great leaders.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for bringing this to my attention, and I will assure him that I will do my best to work with my Senate colleagues in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I want to thank all of the speakers who have participated today, but I think there is a clarification that needs to be made.

Many speakers have come to the House floor and have spoken about the abortion issue and have said that the American taxpayer is being asked in this bill to foot the bill for abortions. That is not correct, and that has to be made clear.

First of all, to me, the issue is whether or not the District of Columbia should be given the opportunity to govern its own affairs or whether Congress will continue to impose on D.C. its will. So, for many years, the folks in the District of Columbia have had to accept Congress' wishes for many test items and issues throughout the country. I believe that, in some cases--and with all due respect to my colleagues--they have imposed these provisions on the District of Columbia in many areas of gay marriage, of needle exchange programs, of abortion, and of gun issues so that they could go back home and say they had done something on that issue. Yes, they did, to the people of the District of Columbia--not to the people in their districts but to the people of the District of Columbia.

What this bill simply says is that local funds raised locally by the taxpayers of the District of Columbia can be used to provide abortion services. The ban on the use of Federal funds for abortion remains in place.

Let me repeat that. Federal funds going to the District of Columbia cannot be used to supply abortion services. What we've done is to say, local funds that you raise on your own from your own American citizen taxpayers can be used for those purposes. That should be clarified, and people should know the truth.

This bill is a good bill; and I hope that at the end of the day, people will vote for it. It covers many areas. I thank all my colleagues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, since this is the first bill I'm managing on the floor as ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee, I'd like to say for the record how honored I am to have this position.

The economic challenges facing our Nation demand that the contents of the Financial Services Appropriations bill be deliberately laid out and carefully structured. The subcommittee has jurisdiction over a diverse group of agencies which regulate the financial and telecommunications industries, collect taxes and provide taxpayer assistance, support the operations of the White House, the Federal Judiciary, and the District of Columbia, manage Federal buildings and provide oversight of the Federal workforce.

I want to commend Chairman Serrano for his efforts in crafting the bill. It has been a real privilege and pleasure to work with him. And while we don't always agree, he has been very open to concerns and issues raised by Members on our side of the aisle. I thank the chairman for his commitment to bipartisanship and for listening to the minority views.

I also want to thank the majority staff who worked on this bill, including the Clerk, David Reich, Bob Bonner, Karyn Kendall, Lee Price, Andria Oliver, Ed O'Kane, Alex Jobal and Nadine Berg. I also have to commend the members of the minority staff. John Martens, Alice Hogans, Dena Baron, and my staff, Justin Rone and Jeffrey Connor, who have all been extremely dedicated to putting the best possible product forward from the subcommittee. On both sides, these staff members worked very hard for the committee and the American people, and I appreciate their efforts.

While I've been pleased to have a wonderful working relationship this year with Chairman Serrano, I am disappointed by the fact that we're not doing what our constituents have asked us to do, and that is to work together in a totally bipartisan way at the full committee level to make the lives of our constituents better.

For example, the rule for consideration of the bill limits debate to 17 amendments, and I believe that 97 were submitted to the Rules Committee. This rule, then, doesn't, the rule governing the debate here, did not display bipartisanship or regular order because we had colleagues who want today offer amendments about which they felt very strongly, saving taxpayer money by taking extra returned TARP money and putting it toward the deficit, people who felt very strongly about the D.C. public school systems, and the like. But it's troubling that they weren't able to offer their very substantive amendments, amendments which our constituents feel very strongly about.

I do urge my colleagues to support a process where every Member has the opportunity to have his or her voice heard on the floor of the House.

Now, let me turn to the bill before us today. The $24.15 billion allocation provided to the subcommittee is much too large. It's a 7 percent, or $1.6 billion increase above the current year, excluding stimulus funding. This allocation allows most agencies in the bill to be funded at or above the rate of inflation. I believe the resource requirements of the agencies funded in the bill can be met with a smaller allocation. Especially at a time when every household in America faces difficult budgetary choices, Congress must be diligent when spending the taxpayers' money. The Federal Government, in this bill, is growing at an incredible rate at a time when employers who I represent in the district have cut jobs, and when people are really hurting. They're making the tough choices, and we really should too, as an example to them.

The Congressional Budget Office concedes that, ``Under current law the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path--meaning that the Federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run.''

This bill primarily funds government agency operating accounts. It doesn't support programs or grants, and doesn't represent a commitment to fiscal sustainability. In short, this bill

provides a 7-percent increase which goes straight to the bureaucracy's bottom line. We're not making the tough decisions the American people feel we should consider at a crucial time for our Nation's economy.

The administration's own budget documents state that the Federal debt held by the public will be 68.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2014. This is the highest percentage of Federal debt to GDP since 1950, the year that I was born.

That said, using the allocation provided to him, Chairman Serrano has done an outstanding job of crafting this bill. I'm grateful that the bill provides increases to critical programs such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Treasury Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Programs, and Tax Preparation Assistance Grants.

I also support the proposed reduction in the ONDCP's media campaign in order to provide additional resources to the Drug-Free Communities program and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program.

I'm pleased the bill provides $74 million for D.C. education programs, including $42 million to D.C. public schools. My stepdaughter currently teaches in a District public school, and her reports, along with the Adequate Yearly Progress measurements, indicate dramatic improvements need to be made before every D.C. school is offering the opportunity that children in D.C. deserve.

In the meantime, this bill does not eliminate the Opportunity Scholarships program, but it does restrict the program to students already enrolled in it.

How can we limit educational opportunities for low-income students when we know the public school system is underperforming?

Regarding the General Services Administration, I am grateful that the chairman has included language directing a review of the GSA supply schedule. In just one example of the need for this review, the Department of Homeland Security has identified $42 million of savings over 5 years by no longer using the GSA to purchase office supplies. We want to try to improve the GSA supply procurement process so that this savings can be replicated throughout all government departments and agencies.

I also support the GSA construction and alteration projects funded in the bill. I don't usually have positive things to say about GSA construction and alteration accounts, but I will say that the chairman has done an excellent job in crafting the bill that funds justifiable projects.

I also want to thank the chairman for including language clarifying the congressional intent regarding the cash-in-advance policy in the sale of agricultural and medical supplies to Cuba. This clarification will help American producers expand their markets in a significant neighboring export market.

One area of the bill that I believe has received an excessive level of funding is payments under the Help America Vote Act. There is no question that we are obligated to provide for free and fair elections. It's a hallmark of our democracy, and we must always work to safeguard the electoral process. However, the administration justifiably proposed to cut this particular program to $50 million because the States aren't spending the funds that have been provided in the past years. The account contains a surplus of $186 million today. This bill needlessly adds $100 million to this underused account.

The Election Assistance Commission is waiting for the States to claim the 2008 and 2009 grant funds. Of the $115 million provided in fiscal year 2008, only $25 million has been claimed by the States. Of the fiscal year 2009 funds, $100 million, only $3 million has been paid to two States.

Another area of the bill that deeply concerns me is controversial changes to longstanding general provisions regarding the District of Columbia. I strongly oppose these changes. I do not believe that increasing the availability of abortions or medical marijuana will improve the quality of life in the District of Columbia.

As you see, Mr. Chairman, this bill is very controversial. Not only does the proposed bill spend more than $24 billion, but it proposed to change longstanding policies on which Members on both sides of the aisle have long agreed. This is why the bill should be considered in regular order.

We recognize that operating under an open rule is grueling, long, hard work, and we've done it that way for years and years, at least as long as I have been on this committee. At the same time, we believe that the responsible regular functioning of this institution is important, especially on spending measures that demand the full attention of the Congress because they have the full attention of the American people.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I have some reservations regarding this bill and I'm disappointed that it's not being debated so that all Members could be heard, I would again like to thank Chairman Serrano for his openness and his friendship.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 3 minutes to a fellow subcommittee member and a very hardworking member from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette)

(Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 3 minutes to a member of our subcommittee, Mr. Crenshaw from Florida.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman again for his graciousness and for his openness in working with me and with

the rest of the subcommittee on the minority side, and I look forward to continuing that relationship.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to echo the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Sarbanes.

Prior to opening New Beginnings, the District of Columbia operated another juvenile detention facility, Oak Hill, at the same location. I represented that area of our State for some period of time. This facility was plagued with a history of escapes, and Oak Hill officials routinely, in my opinion, failed to notify area officials and local law enforcement when that occurred. In 2002, I facilitated an agreement signed by the D.C. Human Services Department obligating them to contact local police and communities in the vicinity about Oak Hill escapees.

Although that facility has now been replaced, I am dismayed that the District has failed to comply with the spirit of that agreement and, as Mr. Sarbanes points out, applicable D.C. law. I join with my colleague in urging the subcommittee to continue to work with the District of Columbia to ensure, first, that every effort to prevent future escape is undertaken and, second, that the local community, including law enforcement, be notified should an escape occur.

I thank my friend for yielding and I congratulate him on his leadership of this committee and say how pleased I am that my good friend, Jo Ann Emerson, is the ranking Republican on this committee. I thank her for her leadership--one of the very constructive Members of this body.

This subcommittee is a special subcommittee to me because I had the great honor of serving on this subcommittee for 23 years. I chaired this subcommittee for 2 years and then served as the ranking member when we had the hostile takeover of the institution by the other side, and they became the chair and I became the ranking member. So I have served on this committee for some time.

I rise today because I normally would have weighed in with the chairman and with the ranking member on the issue of pay for civilian employees. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity to discuss with the chairman the provisions for pay in this bill.

The administration and I had a discussion some months ago with reference to their recommendation on civilian and military pay. I indicated to him that we are in a very unique situation in America today. We've lost millions of jobs, millions of people are concerned about losing their jobs, and I therefore perceived it as a relatively unique situation where Federal employees understood that there would be constraints that were not necessarily present in other years.

Federal employees are already constrained by the ECI, the Economic Cost Index, wage index, in the country. If people across the country don't get raises, they don't get raises.

However, for the 28 years that I have served in this body, there have only been 4 years where there has not been pay parity between the military pay cost-of-living adjustment and the civilian cost-of-living adjustment.

In 1985, the military received half a point more than the civilians. In 1994 and 1995, the civilians received in 1994, 1.7 percent more than the military and, in 1995, fourth-tenths of a point more than the military. In 2002, the military received 2.2 more.

Both the military and the civilian employees obviously perform great services for our country. I think there was a sense by the military and civilians that parity between the two made sense, and in fact the Congress, as you see in 24 of those 28 years, has followed that policy.

The chairman, in consultation with me, because I don't want the burden to be on him or the committee, and in discussion with those of us who represent a large number of Federal employees, concluded because of the uniqueness of our economic situation that agreeing to this lack of parity--not supporting it, but agreeing to it--that may be, for some, a distinction without a difference, but it is, I think, a distinction.

However, because of my concern and my discussions with Mr. Orszag in February or March, I went back to Mr. Orszag--and I want to read into and submit for the Record a letter dated July 9, 2009.

It says, ``Thank you for your June 24, 2009, letter regarding pay parity for Federal civilian employees and nonmilitary in noncombat zones.''

Now, the reason he references noncombat zones is because I think there is an appropriateness in the hazardous duty pay, whether they be military or civilian. We put people in harm's way and we put them at risk, and giving them greater compensation makes a lot of sense. I suggested this to the Armed Services Committee. That's not what we did here, but I will go on.

``Given the exceptional circumstances surrounding the economic downturn, the administration did not include equal pay increases for civilian and military pay personnel in its fiscal year 2010 budget submissions. Nonetheless, the administration shares your commitment''-- and, really, the commitment of all of us in this Congress who, for 24 out of 28 years, has fought for and affected pay parity as the policy of this Congress--``nonetheless, the administration shares your commitment to a strong civil service that can attract the talent we need to deliver the high level of performance the American people deserve from their government.''

This is the important sentence. I made it known to Mr. Serrano. I did not go over this with Mrs. Emerson. But, it says this, ``The administration is therefore committed in future years to the principle of pay parity between the annual pay increase for the Federal civilian workforce and members of the Armed Service serving in nonhazardous locations.'' Again, this is not about hazardous duty pay for people in harm's way. ``Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Federal employees,'' et cetera.

I rise simply to note that on behalf of the Federal employees I represent, the Federal employee representatives with whom I have had extended discussions, the Senate has taken action in their subcommittee. They did not effect pay parity either, although they effected a greater increase than is included in this bill.

Between now and the conference committee, I intend to be working with Mr. Serrano and Mrs. Emerson on what policy we believe to be appropriate, given the economic circumstances that confront all Americans.

Federal employees have the benefit of having stable, secure jobs. They very much appreciate that. They understand that they don't want their fellow citizens to be in distress and without them being cognizant of that distress and appreciation for the economic situation it puts us in.

So I thank the chairman, I thank the ranking member for their concern and their focus, and I look forward to working with him on this issue as they proceed through the process and we go to conference.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, July 9, 2009.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Majority Leader: Thank you for your June 24, 2009,

letter regarding pay parity for Federal civilian employees

and military personnel serving in non-combat zones.

Given the exceptional circumstances surrounding the

economic downturn, the Administration did not include equal

pay increases for civilian and military personnel in its

Fiscal Year 2010 budget submission. Nonetheless, the

Administration shares your commitment to a strong civil

service that can attract the talent we need to deliver the

high level of performance the American people deserve from

their government. The Administration is therefore committed

in future years to the principle of pay parity between the

annual pay increase for the Federal civilian workforce and

members of the armed services serving in non-hazardous

locations.

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Federal employees.

We look forward to continue working with you in the future.

Sincerely,

Peter R. Orszag,

Director.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I have nothing but the highest regard for the dean of the House. As a matter of fact, when I was elected in 1994, my mentor, Ralph Regula, said, When you grow up, you need to be like John Dingell.

And in this particular instance, however, I thought I was going to disagree with his remarks, but I couldn't agree with him more. And I would assure him, as the author of the amendment in this bill and also from observing Mr. Maffei and the majority leader as they move legislation in a different path, that everybody understands the gravity of this situation. But without exerting this lever, we're going to have a crisis in this country, and an economic recovery will not be possible if we continue to throw people out of work.

The use of expedited bankruptcy proceedings by the automotive task force in connection with the two car companies has caused the extinguishment of State franchise laws and rights that have affected all of the dealers that are listed on this chart: 789 for Chrysler, 2,600 for General Motors. About 60 people work at each dealership. This stroke of the pen, this saying that this is the way we're going to go to get General Motors and Chrysler out of trouble on top of the $60 billion that Mr. Obey talked about is going to throw over 200,000 people out of work.

I am grateful to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Serrano, for accepting this amendment and also going to the Rules Committee and protecting it from potential point of order.

And the proof is in the pudding on the car companies. The car companies

submitted reorganization plans on February 17 that didn't contemplate the closing of as many plants, the firing of as many people, nor the closing of the dealerships. The auto task force, according to testimony by Mr. Bloom, the new head of the task force, before the Senate said they pushed back. The task force said to the car companies, you're not being aggressive enough because you haven't closed enough plants, you're not being aggressive enough because you haven't fired enough people, you're not being aggressive enough because you haven't closed enough dealerships, and so now we're left with what we're left with.

As a result, if the crocodile tears that we now hear from Detroit are to be believed, if they really thought this was the way to go, to close down people that are making money for them and don't cost them any money, they would have, on February 17, said, This is our plan. They didn't do it until May, and as a result, 200,000 people are going to lose their job.

I thank the gentlelady for recognizing me again during the course of this debate.

Mr. Chairman, one of the sad consequences of bringing appropriations bills to the floor under a closed rule or under a structured rule is that you leave so many Members on both sides of the aisle between the devil and the deep blue sea. Sadly, we have that in this particular bill.

Mr. Chairman, you would have seen during the rule vote that it was a close vote, and thanks to some great work by orthopaedic surgeons in its last 30 seconds, the provision was able to survive.

I would suggest that it is not a mystery to those of us in this House that the people who voted ``no'' on the rule, many of them--both Republicans and Democrats, and I think the last time I saw the scoreboard it was 33 Democrats--weren't voting ``no'' against their leadership and the rule that they'd brought forward. They were voting ``no'' because the rule did not permit a discussion on an amendment by Mr. Tiahrt or by anybody else relative to the use of taxpayer funds for abortions in the District of Columbia. That's why they voted ``no.''

Likewise, we have discussed--Mr. Obey has discussed, Mr. Dingell has discussed, and I have discussed--the fact that Mr. Serrano and Mr. Obey were very gracious to accept an amendment that I offered that deals with the 200,000 people in this country who are about to lose their jobs, who work at auto dealerships across the country.

You know, for 14 years--just as an aside, Mr. Chairman--I chafed at the fact that appropriators were legislating on authorization bills, but now that I'm one of them, I love it. I think it's a wonderful process, and I hope it continues.

Having said that, as for the vote that Members are going to take in a couple of hours, nobody is going to know where they stand on the car dealers, and nobody is going to know where they stand on the issue of abortion. If you vote ``yes'' on the bill, you can call up and say, Hey, I was with you auto dealers. Yet the people who don't think that taxpayer funds should be used for abortion are going to be concerned about that vote. If you vote ``no'' on the bill, you are not going to have any difficulty with the people who don't think taxpayers' funds should be used for abortions, but your auto dealers would be right to be mad at you. These need to be open ruled.

The fact of the matter is we have to have some clarity. The people who send us here to Washington deserve to know where we stand on these issues. For every year that these appropriations bills had come to the floor when we were in the majority, we hadn't liked some of the amendments. I can remember being where the Chair is today. I sat in that chair for 3 days on an Interior Appropriations bill, and I let every Democrat and every Republican who wanted to say something come down and strike the last word or offer an amendment. At the end of the day, the will of the House prevailed. This rule and the way this debate is being conducted, the rule of the House is not being adhered to.

Mr. Chair, since I was elected to serve in Congress, I have supported the pro-life position. I am strongly committed to protecting the rights of the unborn. Accordingly, I think it is wrong for Americans' tax dollars to be used to pay for abortion.

Mr. Chair, I voted against the rule for consideration of this bill because it did not afford Members an opportunity to express their clear position on the issue of taxpayer-funded abortion. Fortunately, we will have a chance to vote again on a conference report between the House and the Senate, which I hope will strip these abortion provisions from the bill before any bill is signed into law.

Mr. Chair, let the record reflect that I oppose lifting the restrictions on government-funded abortions in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chair, there is an amendment to this bill that should have been made in order, but was not.

The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill before us today includes a modest investment of $12 million to provide an educational lifeline to a few lucky disadvantaged students living in our nation's capital.

We are all too painfully aware of the challenges facing the public school system in the District of Columbia, where less than half of elementary students are proficient in reading and math. Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chancellor Michelle Rhee are working hard to turn this around, and I applaud their efforts.

But change can't happen fast enough for the District's children. That's why Congress created a three-sector plan to improve education for all students. Students could choose to attend their traditional neighborhood public school, a charter school, or a private school--if they were lucky enough to win a scholarship lottery.

Sadly, this Democratic majority and the Obama Administration have backed away from this bipartisan, fair approach that lets District parents decide what school is best for their child. This majority has cut off the scholarship option for any student who is not already in the program.

Earlier this spring, the Department of Education actually rescinded more than 200 scholarships from new students who had been told they would be able to attend the private school their parents had chosen for them this fall.

Instead, these students will now be forced to attend a D.C. public school--one they did not choose, and one that may be failing academically or expose their child to physical danger. Adding insult to injury, some of these children are being separated from older siblings who were lucky enough to receive a scholarship in the past.

This matter is best illustrated by The Washington Post, which featured the plight of one mother, Latasha Bennett, in a July 10 editorial.

The Post reports that Ms. Bennett is ``in an understandable panic over where her daughter will go to kindergarten next month. She had planned on the private school where her son (already a scholarship recipient) excels, but, without the voucher she was promised, she can't afford the tuition.''

What the amendment that was rejected by this Democratic majority would have done is help Ms. Bennett and the thousands of District parents who are trying to give their children the opportunities they never had. It's that simple.

The parents who are fortunate enough to participate in the program are grateful for the opportunity these scholarships provide their children, and students are taking advantage of the benefits. After three years of study we know parents remain highly satisfied with their children's schools, and participating students are ahead of their counterparts in D.C. public schools in reading.

In fact, the lead independent researcher, Dr. Patrick J. Wolf, has called this program a success. In written testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform, he stated the ``D.C. OSP has met a tough standard of efficacy in serving low income inner city students.'' Further, in responding to a question from the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Wolf agreed the D.C. OSP is one of the most effective national programs he has studied.

This type of success should translate into an expansion of the program. Instead, this Administration's Statement of Administration Policy on this bill actually praises the Democratic majority for taking away families' choices, stating, ``The Administration also appreciates the Committee's support for continuing the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program for only those students currently enrolled in the program.''

The reaction from D.C. residents is telling: More than 7,000 D.C. residents have signed a petition imploring Congress to keep the program alive.

Further, seven members of the D.C. Council also have petitioned Education Secretary Arne Duncan to reverse his decision. In their letter, the members say ``we believe we simply cannot turn our backs on these families because doing so will deny their children the quality education they deserve.''

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has helped thousands of low- income students in Washington go to the school of their choice-- including the exclusive Sidwell Friends School attended by the President's own children.

The President obviously chose the school he thought was best for his daughters. Why shouldn't every parent have that opportunity? I am ashamed this majority will not even allow Congress to debate whether or not to continue the program and the benefits it provides to families in the District of Columbia. What a travesty.

This Administration has spoken about ``green shoots'' when it discusses hopeful signs in our weakened economy.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is a ``green shoot'' in the weakened school system of this nation's capital city--and we are letting it die.