No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 186, I call up the bill (H.R. 471) to reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 471 and include extraneous materials thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in strong support of H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act.

H.R. 471 is not new but H.R. 471 is essential. It reauthorizes 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 chartered 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 percent of all District residents, when polled, favor the continuation of this program as to these D.C. Opportunity Scholarships. Obviously among those who have had opportunities they would not otherwise have had, those who have gone on to college and enjoyed benefits because of their opportunity to seek an education of their choice, it is 100 percent 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 an extensive hearing, 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 few other areas. And 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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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 yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, no one has worked harder on this than my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), to whom I yield 3 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to yield the customary 1 minute to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

Mr. Speaker, sometimes you just hear something that's hard to believe. We're wasting money here in Washington. The American people are hearing it first here today.

[From the Washington Post]

White House Ignores Evidence of How D.C. School Vouchers Work

With the House poised to vote Wednesday on legislation to

reestablish a voucher program that allows low-income D.C.

students to attend private schools, the Obama administration

issued a strongly worded statement of opposition. The White

House of course has a right to its own opinion, as

wrongheaded as we believe it to be. It doesn't have a right

to make up facts.

``Rigorous evaluation over several years demonstrates that

the D.C. program has not yielded improved student achievement

by its scholarship recipients compared to other students in

D.C.,'' President Obama's Office of Management and Budget

proclaimed Tuesday, in response to H.R. 471, sponsored by

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

That dismissal might come as a surprise to Patrick J. Wolf,

the principal investigator who helped conduct the rigorous

studies of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and who

has more than a decade of experience evaluating school choice

programs.

Here's what Mr. Wolf had to say about the program in Feb.

16 testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and

Governmental Operations. ``In my opinion, by demonstrating

statistically significant experimental impacts on boosting

high school graduation rates and generating a wealth of

evidence suggesting that students also benefited in reading

achievement, the DC OSP has accomplished what few educational

interventions can claim: It markedly improved important

education outcomes for low-income inner-city students.''

There are, we believe, other benefits to a program that

expands educational opportunities for disadvantaged children.

The program, which provides vouchers of $7,500 to low-income,

mainly minority students to attend private schools, is highly

regarded by parents, who often feel it allows their children

to attend safer schools or ones that strongly promote

achievement. Our view has never been that this voucher

program is a substitute for public school or public school

reform. But while that reform proceeds, scholarships allow a

few thousand poor children to escape failing schools and

exercise a right that middle-class parents take for granted--

the right, and dignity, of choice.

We understand the argument against using public funds for

private, and especially parochial, schools. But it is

parents, not government, choosing where to spend the

vouchers. Given that this program takes no money away from

public or public charter schools; that the administration

does not object to parents directing Pell grants to Notre

Dame or Georgetown; and that members of the administration

would never accept having to send their own children to

failing schools, we don't think the argument is very

persuasive. Maybe that's why an administration that promised

never to let ideology trump evidence is making an exception

in this case.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of talk, and it seems like most of the talk is about how we are 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 and other cities. This is additional money, but here is the amazing fact:

Depending upon whose figures you use, for each student in the District of Columbia, they spend between $17,000 and $28,000 per student. Cato says $28,000. We'll take the District at $17,000. These Opportunity Scholarships go between $7,500 and $12,000. I'll agree that perhaps some of those students would have gone to a parochial or to a 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 is 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 that this is a gift to the District of Columbia in several ways, and I want it understood here today: when you look at the ranking of all of the States, if the District of Columbia were a State, it would be 51st. If you rank it against the top 50 inner cities, it's still only around 22nd. It is a failed school system with the second highest amount, by their own figures, per capita spent on students. If you take Cato's figures, they're far and away the most expensive public schools anywhere in the country.

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 5 years, or at least for this year, to the public schools, with no strings attached, while, in fact, we are breaking it into three pots of $20 million in order to allow the public school to get something.

The Speaker, in this bill, believes strongly they should get something so they're net better off. There is another $20 million so that children can go to charter schools. 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. The last 20, a mere $20 million out of hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact, goes to these few lottery winners.

The gentleman on the other side of the aisle--and rightfully so--said it's a lottery. Yet as a former businessman--and I don't call myself a 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, whether it was $60 million or $600 million, but you've got to take a small amount of that and put it out for lotteries, and if you asked the voters in California would they take it, you'd get the same 74 to 80 percent absolute approval. If it were 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 is--let's do the math. I spend between $17,000 and $28,000 on each student; $7,500 in expanding these Opportunity Scholarships. If they were to use their own in-district money, for every time they hand out $7,500, they would leave themselves over $17,000. It means that every student who remained 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, but that's not the way public education thinks. It thinks in terms of how much do I get per student, how many union teachers do I make sure I employ, how much union dues do I get.

I'm sorry, but that's not 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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to inquire of the minority, do you have additional speakers at this time?

Then are you prepared to close?

Then I will reserve the balance of my time to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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, 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 percent 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've 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 book: $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 or his predecessor or his predecessor, if they have school-age children, they don't go to public school. They 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 5 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 is over 5 years will $100 million go to Opportunity Scholarships that don't basically go to union schoolteachers that are failing the students in a system that is failing.

We just lost the head of education here, Ms. Rhee; and, in fact, part of the reason she left was 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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the subcommittee chairman who has worked so hard on this issue and who truly does understand the gentlelady's passion, if not her accuracy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, 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?

And I am not going to take down the gentlelady's words because it is too short a period of time.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, maybe we should lighten up just a little here. 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 are 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 charter public schools that have been lauded on a wide 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 in the District of Columbia?

I will say one thing in 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 as to my vote, to meet them the other half. But we can't simply say all cuts are bad and have no alternatives, all programs are so needy they can't be cut, and then complain even when we preserve a program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Elections have consequences. 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, the 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 and parents to do something they choose, and they stand in lines--in lotteries, as the other side has said--to escape those schools and to have an opportunity for these 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 she ignores what is 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 place the other side wants it, we're bad. We're trying to give the best we can to parental choice to failed school districts.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the dispensing of the reading, and I reserve a point of order against the motion.

No, I do not.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I will 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 and urge the support of the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor because in a very real sense I feel surrounded. Mr. Speaker, I was sent to Congress, like every other Member, to attend to the business of the Nation. But in fact, I have been surrounded. I have been surrounded by the new House majority that has decided to spend huge amounts of time, in the most autocratic fashion, trying to deprive the District of Columbia of its self-governing rights.

Mr. Speaker, Congress delegated home rule to the District of Columbia in 1973. Before that time, the District of Columbia had no mayor, city council, was ruled by the federal government without any democracy. That was mostly the work of Southern Democrats, whose reasons were, among others, but most definitely, racial. What is happening today is not the work of Southern Democrats. It is the work of the new Republican majority.

I am pulled off the Nation's business day after day after day because of yet another zinger from Republicans to intrude into the local affairs and local spending of the District of Columbia. I had to call the administration and Majority Leader Reid today, cautioning them that the District must not be used as a bargaining chip in the present battle over Federal spending underway here.

The latest intrusion is hard to bear. The District has decided to spend its local funds, among other things, on abortions for poor women. Dozens upon dozens of jurisdictions do that. No Federal funds. Funds raised by the taxpayers of the District of Columbia. What does that have to do with the Federal budget? What does that have to do with overspending or a deficit here? That has to do with somebody's, some majority's, ideological obsession with placing their autocratic desires on a jurisdiction that did not elect them, cannot put them out. It's the very definition of an autocracy.

So they pick on the jurisdiction that has no Senators and throw us into the pot because the far right social conservatives here want something in this CR. So give them the District of Columbia. You can't have us. Who do you think you are? The residents of the District of Columbia are free and equal citizens. We will not be traded off like we were slaves or a colony that can be thrown in by those who don't care. We care.

So whether it is the other body, or this body, or for that matter the President of the United States, get your hands off the local funds of the District of Columbia. You didn't raise a penny of it. We will spend it the way we please. And especially in this battle, which has to do with your deficit spending.

D.C. has a budget that is balanced. Why should that budget be over here in the first place? Our budget was approved last year. It came here and was approved by the House and the Senate before the lame duck. Yet last year's D.C. budget is still here, and we are now sitting on the possibility that when the Federal Government, which now looks like it's stupid enough to close down because the Republicans won't take the best deal anybody has had in the history of this body for what they wanted, that may shut down. And the American people will be shocked to know that would mean that the local government of the District of Columbia, which is not in this fight, will be shut down too.

This has gone much too far. It's one thing to start the session with your first act being to strip the District of Columbia of its vote in the Committee of the Whole, although two courts have said that that vote is constitutional.

Then to move on to intrusion after intrusion, reinsert riders that we just got out, riders that have nothing to do with any Member of this body except me, who represents the citizens of the District of Columbia, a rider that would increase HIV/AIDS in D.C., the District of Columbia, by keeping the city from using its own funds to fund needle exchange.

Again, dozens upon dozens of jurisdictions have driven down their AIDS rate this way. We have the highest AIDS rate in the United States only because the Congress of the United States has killed--I use these words advisedly--killed men, women and children in the District of Columbia by keeping the District for 10 years from using needle exchange, so that AIDS spread throughout the city.

So we have a higher AIDS rate than Baltimore--poorer city--than New York, than Detroit, than Los Angeles because of the wishes of the Congress of the United States which is responsive to nobody in the District of Columbia.

They move to abortion. And if it wasn't enough to keep us from using our own local funds in this budget, as they still hope to do, they have put us in H.R. 3. H.R. 3 is a bill, and instead of a rider which lasts 1 year, they would permanently keep the District from spending its own funds on abortions for women. This is the majority that does not even want the Federal Government in Federal matters. What in the world are they doing in the matters of the local jurisdiction?

What kind of tea party Republicans are these who have just added to the deficit by voting $300 million for private schools in the District of Columbia, adding to the deficit and not paying for it? How do you explain that back home? We didn't ask for these vouchers. Nobody even consulted with public officials in the District of Columbia before they put that voucher bill on the floor last week. That's the kind of contempt this majority has for the residents of the District of Columbia.

We are going to fight back each and every time, and we are going to say to this administration and to the Senate: Don't give in. Don't give us away because they want a chit and they have decided that chit is the District of Columbia.

I went to the Rules Committee from the very beginning when a shutdown looked like it was going to occur. I said, look, this is our money. We are

not in this fight. We all agree on that. This is about Federal spending, the Federal deficit, not a deficit from the District of Columbia. Let us have a provision here that says the District can spend its own local money for the rest of the year. I don't think that there is a single American citizen that would have said that we shouldn't be able to spend our own local money for the rest of this year. The Rules Committee turned a deaf ear.

And so we have had a threat of shutdown after shutdown. And the only reason the District of Columbia is open is because the Federal Government hasn't shut down. Now it looks like these people are going to shut it down anyway because the tea party Republicans have tied the hands of the Speaker behind his very back and taken him prisoner.

Well, look, don't take us prisoner with him. We don't have anything to do with that fight. Imagine what it would mean to shut down a big city in America, and especially since that big city is the Nation's capital. Imagine what we look like to the world that we even shut down the Nation's capital when the Federal Government was shut down. Don't do it. Don't shut the Federal Government down. Speaker Boehner, himself, said that it would cost the government more to shut it down than to keep it open.

But if you do shut it down, for goodness sake, keep the District of Columbia open. That's what Speaker Gingrich did when the Federal Government shut down. He kept the District of Columbia open after the first time--because it shut down several times--because he recognized you can't do that to a big city, a very complex mechanism. You simply can't shut it down and expect that it can keep on moving.

It's a terrible thing to have H.R. 3 on the floor in the first place. That would strip women of a vital portion of their reproductive rights, but it would also go after the insurers to make it almost impossible for a woman to get comprehensive insurance, because the insurer would almost surely have to exclude abortion.

What kind of a place is this? I thought that the new majority came to town on a bandwagon that said let's create jobs. Where is the jobs bill? Why the obsession with a local jurisdiction that has nothing to do with jobs or even with the cutting of spending that you have been so successful in getting?

It's your battle, not ours. To pull us into your battle is tantamount to what bullies do in the schoolyard. Somebody is watching the fight or is passing by, they just get pulled into the fight. We are not even onlookers. We simply are not in it.

It's as if Republicans had a meeting: How many things that we haven't done can we do to the District of Columbia, and how many things that we have done can we do? Well, they have introduced a gun bill. The courts have already found the new gun law the District passed constitutional.

They have introduced a new one that, among other things, would say that you could carry guns in the streets of the Nation's capital and conceal them as well. How would you like 20 million visitors to see people walking around with guns that you can see, and what do you think that means for the many official delegations who frequent the streets of the District of Columbia?

You know, there have been so many things that the Republicans have thought of to do, I need to sit down and consider: Is there anything they haven't thought of to do?

One thing that occurs to me to show you how deep is their contempt for democracy in the District of Columbia, when they put the District of Columbia in their bill that goes after women and insurers nationwide, they tucked us in there, too, to make sure we could never spend local money for abortions for poor women. I mentioned that earlier.

So, of course, as you might imagine, since mine was the only district named in the bill that I would ask to testify--denied. Excuse given? Well, the Democrats already had their witness. I wasn't a witness for the Democrats against the bill.

I asked for common courtesy, the right to be heard on a section of the bill that involved my District. Somebody else needed to speak for the Democrats as the minority witness on the bill itself.

If they look for every attempt, every occasion to deny us democracy, they also look for every occasion to deny the Member who represents this city the rights that I am due simply as a courtesy as a colleague.

Nothing is more precious to Americans than the right to be able to spend their local funds the way they want to. I thought that the new tea party House Republicans would be the first to understand that. Remember what we are talking about. We are talking about local funds of a local jurisdiction.

Time and again, the Republicans use the fact that our budget comes here in order to attach, in the most undemocratic fashion, matters that are their pet projects. Vouchers is an example of a pet project of the Speaker, so that gets priority in coming to the floor. The District is the only jurisdiction that has ever had federally funded private vouchers. There was wholesale resentment and demonstrations against that when it was first put on our city.

Ultimately, we made some compromises. We let the law go 2 years past its expiration date. The Obama administration said anybody who is still in private school can remain until they graduate. You can never compromise enough with the House Republicans.

Now they want it all over again. They want to restart it. I particularly resent the voucher bill because the District of Columbia is one of the only jurisdictions that has allowed public charter schools, separate from our public schools, to flourish. Almost half of our children are educated in these independent, publicly accountable charter schools. You go to the jurisdiction of virtually every Member of this House, you will find that their local school board or their State school authorities have kept charters out and kept them growing. We let them in as a home rule matter, and they flourished.

I have appointed students from the charter schools for service academies. We've got terrific charter schools. We've got a Latin charter school. We've got eight KIPP charter schools. Those are the top of the mark of public schools. I don't know what we can do. We're the last to claim that our public schools are what they should be. In fact, our public schools have improved because of competition from the charter schools. That's the kind of competition you want because the charter schools and the public schools are competing for the same dollar. The private schools are funded out of a separate pot.

Now, a budget resolution comes out today, and it would trade off perhaps the most valuable education program the city has ever had for this voucher program which is unpaid for and should never pass the House. So they want it in next year's bill, and this is how they do it.

They take D.C. TAG, which Congress in the most bipartisan fashion passed because the District of Columbia does not have a State university system where you can go to any one of usually dozens of colleges. So it funds youngsters to go to other States. It has doubled college attendance in the District of Columbia. In order to get a decent job in the District of Columbia, because we are the upscale Nation's Capital, you need some college.

And yet what the budget resolution does is trade off the few for the many. He would make the program means tested. That defeats the whole point. By sending our students to the public colleges of other States, we are trying to replicate what is available as a right in the States regardless of income. So if you are rich or poor, if you live in Maryland, Virginia, Ohio or California, you go to the State university. If it were means tested, of course, it would mean that many, many of the students could not go. After all, they've got to go out of the District of Columbia simply to take advantage of the program in the first place, and it pays only for tuition. They have to pay for their room and board and for their food. If they had to, if it is means tested, then, of course, what you are doing is killing the program.

Somebody had to sit down and think that one up. And they thought it up as a way to pay for vouchers we never asked for, neither I nor any other public official in the District of Columbia was consulted about. We are tired of it.

We are depending on the Senate to be a bulwark against madness because that's what we have here. We see it in

the move to shut down the government. No, they don't want to shut down the government, but they don't have control of their own people. There's no discipline on the other side of the aisle. There's no democracy there. They let a few Members who are the most extreme slice of America decide what their whole caucus will do.

We simply will not be hostages to the new House majority. If you can't get what you want on the floor when you control it, don't put it on the District of Columbia. You should be able, because of your majority, to do what you want to do. We are not the repository for every pet idea that you otherwise dare not put on the House floor. And that is what we have become.

We had hoped that the new majority would focus on the Nation's business, what it said it wanted to do. It has focused on the deficit as the Nation's business, although it's taking food out of the mouths of children in the process. But at least that's a focus on national business.

The average American would ask those who voted to increase the deficit by $300 million last week for private schools in the District of Columbia, why in the world did you do that? Why did you want to give them this? I will tell you why. It was the pet idea of the Speaker, and they don't dare put a national voucher bill on the floor.

The way to do it, you wouldn't have to coerce anybody. You would say, we have vouchers available nationally. Let's have competitive grants. Anyone who wants vouchers can have them. You compete for them. That's how we do things in the Federal Government.

Why didn't they do that? They didn't do that because there's been referendum after referendum in the states, and not one private school voucher referendum has been won by private school voucher proponents. You go home and you tell any American that you are spending Federal money for private schools now, you will get your head handed to you. That's how it was when these referenda ran their course.

Imagine now when the Republicans are cutting billions of dollars from every public school district in the United States, imagine how it looks when they are spending money for private school vouchers on a district that never asked for it and doesn't want it because it's somebody's pet project. Take your pet projects and you know what you can do with them. Do that with them; don't do it here in the District of Columbia.

We ask the majority to stop your obsession with one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia. We ask you if you shut down the Federal Government, for goodness' sake, don't shut down one of America's big cities and a city on which you depend greatly. Many of you live here. Many of the services for the Federal Government are taken care of by the District of Columbia.

This is not something you want to do to the Nation's Capital. It makes us look idiotic to the world at large. For myself, I want to go back to doing the Nation's business. I don't want to be taken off of that business every other day because some Republican or the Republican majority has decided to do something undemocratic to the district I represent.

I put forward an amendment that would get rid of the issue of who gets shut down when the Federal Government gets shut down once and for all. It simply says, look, when the Federal Government shuts down, if the District of Columbia budget is over here and it has gone through the process, the District of Columbia can spend its own local funds. Remember, the budget that comes over here was raised in the District of Columbia and should not be over here in the first place.

I had a budget autonomy bill last session that until the very last moment was going to get through this House and the Senate. It is the very essence of no democracy that somebody's own taxes that they raise in their own local jurisdiction would be subject to somebody else who didn't have anything to do with raising a cent of those taxes. That is what happens to the District of Columbia.

When the District of Columbia's budget comes here, they don't dare change anything in the complicated local budget of the District of Columbia. That is very complicated. You could throw everything out of kilter. So essentially they don't bother with the budget. They spend all of their time seeing what they can attach to the budget, substantive legislation that has no place in an appropriation in the first place and has no place in somebody else's budget above all.

Mr. Speaker, part of the problem may be that some Members either do not know because they are new or have forgotten, either because for 4 years of Democratic control these issues didn't come up, or because they want to forget. I come to the floor this afternoon to assure you I shall not let you forget, we will make sure that in your home districts, they know that you are attending not to the business of that district but to the business of the District of Columbia and that you are doing so in the most undemocratic and autocratic fashion. You who quote the Constitution ought to sit down and think for a moment what the Framers would have done had they seen the Federal Government, which they were afraid of, intervene into the local affairs of any district.

I ask you: hands off, lay off the District of Columbia.

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

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 5 years to enable a tiny fraction of D.C. students to attend private schools. We have been told that the purpose of this bill is to help D.C. children get a better education. But House Republicans passed legislation earlier this year that slashes 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 I-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 would lose their Head Start placements, 500 could face reduced or eliminated after-school placements, and 2,500 would lose supplemental educational 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 $300 million authorization for education in that one district. And 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 Institute for Education Sciences evaluated this program and found that in 2010, there was no overall statistically significant impact on student achievement in reading or math. By comparison, reading and math test scores did improve among students enrolled in the District's public schools and its public charter schools from 2007 to 2010.

The bill is also a direct assault on D.C. home 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 to send about 1.3 percent 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 of the students. We should provide a high-quality education for all of them, and we should support continued improvements that raise all student achievement.

I have 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, as one who has sat on a charter school board, I agree with the President's statement of the administration's policy which opposes creating or expanding a voucher program and asserts 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's students. This amendment is a thoughtful improvement, and I urge all Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I grant the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

In regards to what was just stated by the gentleman, we care about all these children. And it would be helpful if $5.7 billion was not slashed from the Pell Grants when these kids get to college.

It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. Speaker, it is not a false dichotomy when, through H.R. 1, $1.8 billion is being slashed from the Head Start budget, causing 218,220 Head Start students to not get a start.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Danny Davis.

Mr. Speaker, most respectfully 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 for them to be, too. That is why we oppose the $1.08 billion cut from Head Start in H.R. 1 and the $5.7 billion cut from the Federal Pell Grant program.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ additional minutes.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left on both sides.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

No, I do not.

I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.

Might I inquire how much time each side has.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. 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.'s title I funding, $500,000 for 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 educational opportunity grants, $3.92 million from Head Start programs which would disallow 700 Head Start students from going to Head Start.

So when you talk about giving a gift, I mean, that's one thing; but just in Pell Grants alone you've taken away from the very people that you say you support.

And, you know, let's just be fair about this. Mr. Speaker, this is about every child. I've said it in committee, and I'll say it again. There is 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 this is not the way to do it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: The last speaker said something that I found very offensive when he said it's about raw, gutter politics. I personally resent that, and the reason why I resent it is because it sends the wrong message on this floor.

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 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 that 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 is not one Member 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 about 1,012 kids. We're also talking about a charter school program with over 27,000 and counting. And it 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 the 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.

Now, you talked 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 you just voted in H.R. 1 to slash $845 per year. And I see students every year, the board I sit 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.

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. But then after they get out of high school--and it is not about gutter politics--after they 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.

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 okay. 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 worst thing, the greatest threat to our national security is our failure to properly educate every single one of our children. Leave no child behind.

Mr. Speaker, 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 are in tears, too.

In my district, by the way, a total of 20,000 kids will not get Pell Grants or get $1,000 slashed per year from Pell Grants. They are in tears, too. Do you know why? Because they will drop out of school and many of them will never return to school because they don't have the money. They are in tears, too.

I believe with all my heart that the Speaker's intentions are good. You won't hear me say anything opposite of that. But, again, I am trying to figure out how do we take the dollars that we have and spend them in the most effective and efficient manner.

When we talk about the least of these, I really want to see kids get that head start that I am talking about; and, for the life of me, maybe I am missing something, I don't see how on the one hand we talk about these children that we love, 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 have got to go.

So you are right that there was a time when people could not get in that schoolhouse door all over this country. My parents, they would be walking to school for 4 miles and other kids would come riding the bus spitting on them.

And they were unable to get an education.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is let's embrace all of our kids. I want for my colleagues' kids, Mr. Speaker, the same thing I would want for mine. This program affects about 1,000 kids. Well, just in charter schools, there are over 27,000 in the District.

So I would just support the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Yes, I am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

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 5 years by $150 million below what was authorized for expenditure in the base text of H.R. 471.

We have 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 5 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 would 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/IDEA activities.

As we have discussed, students participating in the existing D.C. voucher program have shown no statistically significant improvement in reading or math skills. 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 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 a suitable curriculum.

Since the enactment of IDEA, achievement among 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 $250 million 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.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, 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 reestablished 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 two in California; and

Because it increases the deficit by $300 million, violating the majority's own CutGo 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 of ``a race to the top'' meet the top.

I'm proud that the District of Columbia has the largest charter school system in the United States of America, with almost half of 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 has fueled the competition that 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 dollars.

So, today, it is interesting to note that the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the D.C. Public Schools have awakened 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 2 years.

Now, contrast this with what the Bush Education Department found for the very voucher 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.

D.C. charter schools, however, outperform the D.C. public schools and greatly outperform the voucher 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 percent higher than the graduation rate of our traditional public high schools and 8 percent 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, or target 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 of 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. And there was a District of Columbia charter school law. He worked with me, not against me, to introduce a bill----

To introduce P.L. 104-134, which has helped us produce a large-scale robust alternative 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 have done nothing but try 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.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has been obsessed with depriving the District of Columbia of its home-rule rights ever since this Congress opened. They have come now 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 opportunity 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 voucher bill to the floor this session.

Mr. Speaker, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to correct the gentleman from California. The District 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 charter school law. We consulted with the local public officials, with the school board, with citizens. It was the home rule alternative to vouchers, and you can check with Speaker Gingrich.

Now, my home rule substitute would redirect the $300 million in H.R. 471, 50 percent to the District public charter schools, 50 percent 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 have 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 2 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 charter middle and high schools scored twice as high as the traditional public charter schools in the District in math and reading, and they have a graduation rate 24 percent above the D.C. public schools and 8 percent 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 interests in making the District a petri dish of the pet project of a few Members of Congress. You would look at our public charter schools as the alternative to the District's public schools.

There are 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. I mean, listen to some of the names of these schools: Washington Latin School; Washington Math, Science, and Technology High School. I have, myself, appointed two students from Washington Math, Science, and Technology to Service Academies. Early Childhood Academy; Hospitality Academy; Howard University Middle School--that's a charter school; the KIPP Schools. We've got eight of them. Those are the top charter schools and some of the best public charter schools in the United States. SEED Residential charter school. You have some money? You want to spend some money? Here is the place to spend it.

To show you just what kind of a home rule alternative this is, with almost 100 different schools, they have got 19 new charter school applications coming for 2012. People keep coming despite the improvements in the District public schools. They are going to have a preschool charter. They are 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 responsible to the people of the District of Columbia, who do not have to stand for election in the District of Columbia but get a free ride, as I do not.

If you insist on adding to the deficit, then, for goodness sake, reinforce the home rule, 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 lists, 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 the second time around.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the committee.

I am pleased to yield the gentleman another minute.

Will the gentleman yield?

How much time remains?

To the gentleman who didn't have the nerve to yield to me, this bill, of course----

Point of Order

The speaker before the last speaker wanted to know what the offense was. The offense is to the home-rule prerogative to the people of the District of Columbia to decide on educational choices for their own children. That's what the offense is.

Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

The gentleman cited a number of schools that he said vouchers had helped. There is no data showing that voucher 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 just came out Tuesday.

Results from the first administration of Statewide exams for students participating in the Milwaukee voucher program showed lower academic achievement than students attending Milwaukee public schools. The results also show that the Milwaukee public schools and voucher schools have significant lower achievement than the Statewide average.

But here, you have a big city public school system that is doing better than the voucher 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 voucher schools did not show significant improvement in math and reading scores. While I have shown details here this afternoon of significant improvement of the D.C. public schools, the only urban school system that has in fact shown significant improvement in math and science, and particularly dazzling results in the D.C. charter schools.

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

I respect my good friend, but I have got to stand for and with the people I represent. And if the gentleman wants to put the joy in the hearts of my parents, I challenge him to put joy in the hearts of the parents of his beloved Indiana, as he says, by bringing a national vouchers bill to the floor so that some of them may have the choice that we have not asked for.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of our committee.

I am pleased to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of the District of Columbia see a pattern here. The majority begins 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 away or try to take away the needle exchange program that keeps HIV-AIDS from being spread throughout the District of Columbia. Then they are also trying to take away the choice of low- income women in the District in two bills, the reproductive choice of low-income women in two bills: H.R. 1 and H.R. 3.

They have 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 are coming forward yet again with more to do to the District of Columbia by trying to erase our marriage equality law.

Now they say, after taking all of that from you, we have got something for you, something you never asked for, vouchers, instead of funding your own home rule choice, your public charter schools.

Yes, we know you fund the charter schools as well; but you then fund your choice, not ours. My amendment says if you want to fund something, ask us. Fund what we want, not what you want. And if you want vouchers, bring a national voucher 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 H.R. 471, because it certainly adds to the deficit, too; and you will be voting for your choice, not ours.

Many of you have come to the House under the banner of liberty, to get the Federal Government 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 would 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 and 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.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have had many misnamed bills, euphemistically called almost anything to try to make some kind of point, but this one does not have a thing in the world to do with restricting Federal money used in abortions. That has not been done for 30 years. This bill actually says let's try to make sure that no insurance companies in the country will ever cover them again no matter what the circumstances.

With no other medical procedure would we be even standing here talking about what's best for American citizens. In all my years in Congress, I have never had to debate a bill about how and when a patient can receive an appendectomy nor a bill about how or when a patient can receive corrective surgery nor is it legal to have a vasectomy.

Yet here we are today debating a bill that will reach far beyond the status quo and place restrictions on the constitutionally protected right to access reproductive health care. In the case of abortion, it has been decided with this bill that they can dictate how and when a woman is allowed to receive reproductive health care.

In part because women are instinctual nurturers, the decision about whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most personal and important decisions that they will ever make. In making this decision, a woman should be free to consult with whomever she pleases, whether it be her doctor, her spouse, her family, a parent, confidant, or religious adviser.

But a woman should never, never be forced to adhere to extreme restrictions placed upon her by Members of Congress. I've served in three legislatures, and in every one of them were always men in blue suits who knew very little about the life-altering experience of pregnancy and birth who demanded this kind of action.

I have often spoken in support of a woman's right to access an abortion and have many people, including some of my own constituents, who disagree with me, and that's fine. They have never, however, tried by law to enforce upon me what they themselves believe.

Once I was at a meeting in my district and I was asked by a man who was strongly opposed to a woman's right to choose, What should be done about that? And my response to him was simple and personal and still applies today.

I asked him that if, God forbid, he ever finds himself in a difficult position of having to decide whether or not his wife needed to have an abortion, either because of the health of the fetus or the mother was in danger or because of another personal or private matter, is he willing to say to people gathered in the hospital and during the discussion, No decision can be made until Louise Slaughter gets here because Congress will make that decision for him?

The right to an abortion is already a procedure that is carefully regulated by the decision of Roe v. Wade. Today's legislation would go far beyond this status quo and further restrict access in an attempt to make it practically impossible to receive an abortion under these laws.

Today's bill changes the tax system--this is an important point and I want you to understand this--for private health care plans that offer abortion coverage to small businesses and individuals, as most of them do. If passed into law, this bill would pressure private health insurance plans to stop offering that coverage altogether. And that, Madam Speaker, is the purpose of this bill.

In addition, and most egregiously, today's legislation opens the door to the IRS audits of rape and incest survivors, to prove that they followed the law when paying for an abortion. Do we do this with anything else--I'm absolutely astonished--to place this kind of burden on a medical procedure? It's been designed specifically to chip away at the rights of women.

Most egregiously, this bill has put a dangerous provision into the committee report that accompanies this bill. Please listen up. You need to know what this says in this report language, which is as important as the bill itself. That report language states that the legislation is intended to prohibit the use of Federal money to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the rape of a child too young to give consent.

Now, think about that for a moment. This bill forbids any money being used to help that child. It's not bad enough that they have been raped or that they are victims of incest. Now we're telling them that they have to keep records so that they can prove to the IRS that they followed the law? That is what I thought about when I made the statement earlier this spring ``show me your papers.'' And that is precisely what this bill is asking to do.

If this bill becomes law, think about the statutory rape. Think about your children. Think about other people's children. If it becomes law, the committee report will become one of the

documents relied upon by the courts when deciding the cases about abortion. With the committee report in hand, a future justice would have the document they need to further restrict access to abortion for victims of rape and incest. If this sounds extreme, believe me, it is.

We, like our Nation's Founders, know that each individual is entitled to his or her beliefs. But no matter how strongly we believe them, we should not be allowed to force them upon others as we wish. Yet placing an ideology upon others and restricting their choices when it comes to reproductive health is the spirit behind today's legislation and one of the many reasons why it should be stopped.

As we all know, at the time of our Nation's founding, the ideal of equal rights and freedoms was far from realized. In fact, it was not even of much concern. African Americans were property; women could not vote or own anything; and indeed, a pregnant woman who was widowed could find that her child had been willed away from her by her husband, who had all the rights. Native Americans were pushed off their land and out of our society.

With great struggle and over time--and certainly, I know of the struggle for women's rights because of what happened in my own district, which is where that struggle began--we have righted many of these wrongs, and as a Nation, we have come to believe that men and women of every color and creed are created equal, that we are all entitled to the rights and individual freedoms at the core of our Nation's ideals.

Today's proposed legislation up-ends the principle of equal rights and freedoms by placing severe restrictions on the constitutionally protected right to an abortion. Instead of crafting legislation to restrict a woman's right to safe, secure reproductive health, this Congress should respect the rights of women and uphold their constitutionally protected rights.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and on the underlying bill, which may be the most egregious that comes to the floor this year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield myself 30 seconds just to speak to something that is very important.

H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable.

Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a nurse, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to put in the real Guttmacher statement, what they have said. ``The claim that restoration of Federal Medicaid coverage would result in a significant increase in the incidence of abortion nationwide is not supported by research, and extrapolating from Guttmacher's Medicaid

findings to assert that coverage in the private insurance market is strongly linked to abortion incidence is entirely illegitimate.''

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the

gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I first want to remind people what we've said about statutory rape. When this bill was first introduced, it modified the long-standing rape exception to the Hyde amendment by adding the term ``forcible'' before the word ``rape.'' In other words, the victim of rape had to show wounds and other matters that she really was forcibly raped before she could be covered, but they changed that because there was such an outcry. But they have found another way to get to exclude other victims of rape. Just saying those words scandalizes me.

The House Judiciary Committee report, which will be used by the courts to interpret the intent of this bill, says the bill will not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape, claiming that this reflects existing law, and of course it does not. Statutory rape is one of the most serious of crimes because the young woman involved has not given consent and, indeed, is not allowed to because of her age. How dare we do that? Have they not suffered enough?

The Hyde amendment does not distinguish between statutory rape or any other kind of rape. In fact, a 1978 regulation implementing the Hyde amendment makes clear that it includes victims of statutory rape in the funding exemption.

Now, if most people in the United States don't want their tax money used for abortions, they can relax. We've not been using tax money for 38 years. We're not going to change that with this bill. That's not the intent of this bill at all. It's simply the title, which is meaningless.

What it does do is it increases taxes on middle class and lower- income women and their families, but it singles out small business employers and penalizes them if they provide comprehensive insurance coverage that includes abortion. Nearly two-thirds of all voters polled--this is two-thirds--oppose this draconian change in the tax system for small business and individuals with plans that cover abortion. In fact, even most Republicans, tea party supporters, anti- abortion workers, and evangelical Christians oppose the tax increase.

As the head of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce wrote in a Hill column Monday: ``H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to the millions of small businesses now offering health insurance to employees and eligible for the new tax credits'' that come from the new health care bill.

[From The Hill's Congress Blog, May 2, 2011]

H.R. 3 A Deliberate Attack on Small Business

(By Frank Knapp, Jr.)

After decades of escalading group health insurance premiums

and demands for Congressional action for relief, a little

over one year ago many of our small businesses finally were

given the opportunity for federal health insurance tax

credits.

Now H.R. 3, up for a vote this week, threatens to erase

this benefit for small businesses because it would eliminate

the health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care

Act for any existing or new plans that provide coverage for

abortion.

The problems H.R. 3 would cause for small businesses that

are trying to do the right thing and offer health insurance

have nothing to do with the ideological intent of this bill.

Even if a small business owner agrees with the intent, the

cost of passage of H.R. 3 in terms of time, money and

continuity of policy is very significant.

Small business owners do not have the expertise to closely

examine healthcare plans to determine if abortion coverage is

included. Such services are not labeled ``abortion'' but

rather fall into numerous clauses in a health care policy

from prescription drugs to outpatient surgery to maternity

care that includes unforeseen complications. Small business

owners are no more prepared to completely understand the fine

print of their health insurance policies than members of

Congress.

Requiring a small business owner to try to understand the

intricacies of their health insurance policies would require

considerable time on their own or with an insurance agent

(who also probably has no idea how to interpret the verbiage

in the policy as it relates to abortion). Essentially H.R. 3

will cause a small employer to divert time from running the

business. And if time is money, as we are all told, then H.R.

3 will be an increase in cost for small businesses offering

health insurance.

Small businesses that finally determine that their health

insurance policy does in fact cover even one abortion service

will be financially punished in one of two ways. Either they

can keep their present policy and lose thousands of dollars

in hard won tax credits or they will give up their current

health plan and most likely have to pay higher premiums for a

new plan. The latter will result from both re-underwriting by

a new carrier and adding provisions now required in any new

policy. This is especially true since the health insurance

exchanges will not be in place until 2014 to increase

competition for this business.

H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to the millions of

small businesses now offering health insurance to employees

and eligible for the new tax credits. Targeting small

businesses for such punitive action, while ignoring big

businesses that also receive tax benefits when offering

health insurance, demonstrates a callous disregard for the

``backbone of our economy'', as members of Congress love to

proclaim.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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