Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 471) to reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program, and for other purposes.

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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 186 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, sometimes called the SOAR Act, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Further, this proposed rule will make in order all of the amendments filed at the Rules Committee for H.R. 471. Admittedly, it was only one amendment, but it is made in order, and it is offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). This is an amendment that was presented in the committee and defeated on a 12-21 vote, but which will be reoffered here today as a substitute measure. In short, this rule is about as fair as they potentially get.

Madam Speaker, this is a very open, straightforward rule that we will be considering today, and I am pleased to stand before the House in support of this rule as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 471. I commend the sponsor of this legislation, the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who has previously served as chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, and he understands education issues very, very well.

Madam Speaker, when the Cubs in the 1960s hired Leo Durocher to be their manager, he was hired 2 years after they finished the season 49 games out of first place. In his short period of time there, he would take them to the top, in which case, in 1969, a year that still hurts, the Cubs were atop the National League for 155 days. Unfortunately, 7 of those days they were not on top included the last day of the season.

But Durocher always said for his team that ``I make a great effort to argue for the issues, but there are two things that are working against me: the umpires and the rules.''

There will be a lot of people--some people--who will speak against this motion, perhaps even this rule, and there are two things against them: One is the unique constitutional relationship between Congress and the District of Columbia that is not there, vis-a-vis the States; and, number two, the underprivileged kids who benefit from this underlying bill.

If I were to predict a preview of what will be taking place in the debate, not only on the rule but also on the bill itself, I would predict four themes will be appearing time after time after time.

One will be the concept of the constitutional mandate that is here. When this Republic was established, the Constitution gave unique jurisdictional responsibility to Congress over the District of Columbia. That is not going to be a violation of their home rule concept, but it is a responsibility of Congress. And there is great precedent for this particular kind of provision.

In 1996, it is Congress that insisted upon a charter school program in the District of Columbia. You will hear from both sides of the aisle recognition of the great value that that program has, and justifiably so. There is a waiting list in the District of Columbia for those charter schools. This underlying bill increases the percentage of funding going to charter schools in the District.

In 2003, an Opportunity Scholarship was instituted, at the insistence of Congress. Again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the opportunity; disadvantaged kids who wanted the opportunity that this scholarship afforded them. In the appropriation bill for 2010, unfortunately, Congress intervened again in a negative way and cut out this Opportunity Scholarship program. There were a lot of upset students and parents who couldn't believe how special interest politics got in the way of their son's or daughter's dreams and was snatched from their very hands. Their opportunity to make what they believe were better educational choices was basically taken away from them.

H.R. 471 remedies this inequity. There were 216 kids at the time scheduled to enter the program who were not allowed because of the action of that particular appropriation bill. Those 216 kids, by this particular legislation, will be given priority in once again being able to apply for this Opportunity Scholarship.

A second discussion point that will be coming up repeatedly deals with the efficacy of these programs. There will be conflicting data that will be thrown from both sides as to the effectiveness. But I think the one piece of information that can be clearly stated is that 91 percent of the kids enrolled in this Opportunity Scholarship complete their coursework. That is 21 percent higher than a control group of kids who were interested but were not allowed the opportunity to complete this particular program. That completion rate is almost 32 percent higher than the regular completion rate of kids in the public education system in Washington, D.C.

To quote Dr. Patrick Wolf, who was the lead investigator of the evaluation mandated by Congress of this program, he concluded by stating: ``The research evidence and the testimonials of parents confirm that the District of Columbia is a better place because of the Opportunity Scholarship program.''

The third issue that you will be hearing deals with the support of this particular program. There will be dueling statistics that will be coming at you during the course of the debate. Those in favor of the bill will give lists of groups who are in favor of this particular program. Those against the bill will give lists of groups and unions who are opposed to it. Each side will give a list of political leaders both within Washington, D.C., and outside who are in favor; and those opposed will give lists of political leaders who do not support this program.

There will be poll results that will be given from both sides, the most recent of which will be given by advocates, a Lester & Associates poll, which simply says 74 percent of the D.C. residents polled supported this program and wanted it restored and made available to all D.C. students for all their abilities to participate. You will hear polling data to the contrary. You will hear anecdotal stories to the contrary.

Perhaps the most telling, though, issue of support deals with parents and the kids in Washington, D.C., who lined up for this program; who went on waiting lists for the opportunity to become involved in this program; who cried and pled with Congresses past when this program was eliminated. They clearly do not want this program to totally be destroyed because it takes away from them their chance, their option, their opportunity to individualize and upgrade their educational opportunities.

This program probably has a philosophical basis, a kinship, if you would, with the Pell Grant, the GI Bill of

Rights, in which, once again, government tried to empower with choices with few strings attached individual adult students or parents so they could choose their own personal education future. That's what this bill still tries to do.

The final concept that will probably be presented during debate on the rule as well as the bill deals with the concept of liberty. We have a Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. The Revolutionary War was supposedly fought for the purpose of preserving personal liberty.

I have to admit, though, as I was teaching school that it was difficult for my kids there to really comprehend what liberty meant. It was an abstract noun, to say the least. The Founders clearly understood what that concept meant as they looked upon a government that was far, far away from them. And in the Declaration of Independence we're willing to write that the government far away has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eke out their stance. Indeed, they had waged war against them. Those of us who live in the West today have the Department of the Interior to remind us of those same circumstances.

But the kids, mainly in urban and rural settings and suburban settings, still have a problem understanding what it means really to have liberty until you try and talk about liberty in terms of choices. Options, opportunity, without the heavy hand of a government official defining what those options and opportunities may or may not be.

The entrepreneurial world gets it. They realize if they want a market share, they have to give people choices in their lives. So if I want a mobile phone, there are all sorts of plans from which I may choose. Even in the smallest corner market in Washington there are still a whole row of breakfast cereals from which I may choose. I may want Pringles potato chips, but they still give me 16 varieties. If indeed Omaha Steaks sends me an invitation every week to try and come up with one of their products, I will choose this week to order one that fits for me.

Only in Washington in this government do you still have people that truly believe in a one-size-fits-all approach and that mandates can actually be worked, that believe and go back to the concepts of Henry Ford when the automobile was so unique he could with a straight face look at a consumer and say, You can have a car in any color you want as long as it is black.

Unfortunately, many of the ideas and philosophies still in government today, indeed some of the programs still in government today, were born in that era in which the idea of an elite sitting in some darkened office would decide what I wanted and what was indeed best for me. That's liberty.

The icons who face us in this Chamber, all of them were related in some way of moving the concept of law forward, which led to the concept of liberty. This bill is based on that concept of choice, opportunity, and options for people. It deserves our support because it is an opportunity. Call it an education app for Americans living in the District of Columbia. The most needy and deserving can actually have their choice of how they want their education to take place and it is done under the sphere of responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution.

This bill is worthy of our heritage. It is a symbol of our legacy. One can only assume that the Founders, indeed the icons that are looking down from the perch above us, are smiling now, saying, Congress doesn't always do it correctly, but this time with this bill they got it right.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being here, and I also appreciate being here with my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who is one of the true delights with whom I have such an opportunity to work here in Washington.

I guess, if he is saying that we have the group du jour from whom we are presenting bills, today's group du jour would be those who are financially disadvantaged and still want a better opportunity for education.

As I said, there would be four issues that would be discussed. We can check off three of the four already. Only the concept of ``liberty'' has yet to be addressed here. Some of them may be non sequiturs, but they were still there nonetheless. I guess the last statistic that still can be put out there as to whether this program works or not deals with the parents who, when the free market of ideas was opened up to them, they chose this program. They wanted this program. They wanted to maintain this program, and they will flock back to it.

Since my good friend Mr. Hastings also used a baseball reference to tie me, I have to one-up him one more time. In the words of the great Satchel Paige, who was consulting a struggling pitcher who was failing to get it over on the corners, he just said, Throw the pitch. Just throw strikes. Home plate don't move.

This program is one of those strikes. All we need to do is throw it. Home plate don't move.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to be here and also be joined my good friend from Colorado, whom I should probably publicly apologize to for saying disparaging things last night. I screwed up and I apologize for that.

However, he presents to us an unusual conundrum that is here on who gets to decide what will or will not be allowed. Whatever we do in this unique situation, the decision will be made. If we pass the underlying bill, we empower parents in Washington, D.C., to make a choice. If we don't pass the underlying bill, we prohibit parents in Washington, D.C., from making that kind of choice. Once again, when they were allowed to make that choice, they had a waiting list for those wishing to participate. It's a conundrum whatever we do, yes or no. It makes a decision on behalf of the people of Washington, D.C.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again, I appreciate the opportunity of discussing this particular issue.

There is one effect where the Delegate from the District of Columbia does have something in common with the State of Utah. Over 70 percent of my land is owned by the Federal Government in Utah, and it is one of those factors that inhibits our ability to fund our education system in the State of Utah. The District of Columbia has that same initiative problem with so much of the land owned by the Federal Government.

The difference, though, is that this program is giving Federal money to the District of Columbia to fund not just the scholarship opportunity but also increased funds to fund their charter schools, as well as funds to fund the regular public education system. In that respect, I wish we were very similar to what's happening in the District of Columbia, but unfortunately we are not.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so I can find another baseball metaphor.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am not objecting at all to the concepts and the comments about Chinese trade. I think that's a legitimate issue. It has its time and place, perhaps not necessarily on this particular bill. But as an approach that the opposition, the minority, wishes to take, I can understand that.

I do, though, have my baseball analogy still here, and I'm not going to count the DiMaggio joke because that was made up. That was not a true one. But it is true that Casey Stengel at one time, talking about I think one of the best second basemen ever, Bobby Richardson, said: I just can't understand it. He doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, he doesn't stay out at night, and he still can't hit .250.

Now, even though a healthy lifestyle may extend a career, it still has no ability or connection to the ability of hitting a curve ball. But those kind of non sequiturs are part and parcel of the entire debate that we will be having not just on this rule but also extended on to the other debate as well.

I find it personally very difficult to understand why anyone would oppose this bill, which only expands choices for D.C.'s brightest and least financially blessed schoolkids and does not subtract from school funding for D.C. public schools. In fact, it increases funding while keeping within Federal budget disciplines. It increases the percentage of money going to the charter school program as well as to the public schools. This is a win-win-win situation because it sends money to three distinct efforts: the regular public school; the charter schools, which have a waiting list more than ever before; and also this Opportunity Scholarship Program, which had a waiting list and will again as well.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

I will yield 10 minutes if the gentleman from California wants it. Otherwise, I will be happy to use what he does not use.

Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time, and I will tell the gentleman from Florida that I am prepared to close when he is.

Once again, I appreciate the discussion, I appreciate my good friend from Florida if for no other reason that all of a sudden people are now sending me baseball stories and analogies here. I have one from Casey Stengel which I will save for the next time we join together here on the floor.

Madam Speaker, it is fairly clear what we are dealing with in this particular bill. This is money that is within our Federal budgetary discipline. We are talking with this bill about money that would go to the traditional public education system in the District of Columbia, an equal amount of money that would go to the charter schools which does have a waiting list here in the District of Columbia, as well as money that would go to this new opportunity scholarship.

Once again, with our dueling statistics, whether one wants to say that it was successful or not, the bottom line is still there were parents who wanted that program, there were parents who complained when the program was taken away from them by Congress, and there are parents who still want this program reestablished. They want those options for their children.

We have a choice here. If we act favorably on this bill, we empower those parents. If we refuse to act favorably on this bill, then we limit those parents and the choices that they seem to want. That is one of those issues that is there.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate the fairness of this structured rule. I urge its adoption, along with the underlying legislation. I urge members to support this rule which will allow the House to consider good legislation that affords bright and competitive D.C. students with an enhanced opportunity to pursue a higher quality of education while not harming the underlying public education system in the District of Columbia.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 186 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

639) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify

that countervailing duties may be imposed to address

subsidies relating to a fundamentally undervalued currency of

any foreign country. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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 am very pleased today to rise in strong opposition to H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, also known as the SOAR Act. I also am very pleased that my friend from Utah has, in the tradition of this committee, granted the time to our side. This legislation revives the District of Columbia's school voucher program, a program that was allowed to expire after 5 years of failing to improve student achievement.

My colleague said that there will be statistics on both sides. Doubtless that is true. I also have great respect that the presenter of the rule today is a school teacher. At least if somebody is going to meddle in somebody else's business, they ought to at least know a little bit about what they're talking about. Too many times in our States, too many times in this place, many of us who are not educators, nor have we been involved, are making decisions about the education of children when we should be being a lot more careful.

For example, I'm sure that my colleague, who knows his State well, as I know mine and as we know ours--all of us in this institution--is mindful that in the last 41 years voters have rejected private school vouchers every time they have been proposed--interestingly enough, two times in Utah, I would urge my good friend. As late as 2007, Utah voted 62 percent to 38 percent not to have vouchers. Before that, it was sort of like the District of Columbia. Incidentally, in 1981, 89 percent of the people in a referendum in the District of Columbia voted against vouchers--but in 1988, in Utah, 67 percent. It didn't change very much from that time to 2007, which isn't very much time from now.

So how dare we come here to tell these people that we are going to thrust upon them something they don't want without a single bit of consultation with a single member of the public officials in this community being consulted. I might ask why we are here debating such a misguided, narrowly focused measure when violence is raging in the Middle East, when earthquakes and tsunamis have ravaged Japan, and when our own Nation's economy is kind of sputtering along. I suppose, when it is one of the leadership of the Republican Party's pet issues, the people's work can always be put on hold. This matter is nothing more than a shallow attempt to, once again, appease the right-wing of the Republican Party.

Well, Madam Speaker, Congress' oversight of the District is not an excuse for political pandering to the Republicans' special interest of the day du jour. My colleague used Leo Durocher. He played with and against Yogi Berra. Yogi Berra reminds me, if I were to use an analogy, that this is deja vu all over again.

He and Leo would be proud that we are talking about them, Mr. Bishop.

Whether it is gun rights, a woman's right to choose or education policy, the District is not and should not be the dumping grounds for Republicans' ideological whims. My colleagues have already stripped the District of its limited vote in Congress. The least they could do is allow them to control their education system just as every other jurisdiction in this country is able to do.

The people of the District of Columbia did not ask for or want this program, nor were they or their elected officials consulted, as I have pointed out. If they had been, I'm sure the committee would have been told what many of us already know: that this program is simply a waste of money. According to legislatively mandated evaluations, the D.C. voucher program failed to show any statistically significant impact on student achievement. This is in contrast to reading and math scores across the District, which did improve over the same period. Though my colleagues claim that this program serves students who would otherwise be stuck in failing schools without the resources to adequately meet their needs, only about a quarter of the students using vouchers came from schools in need of improvement.

Additionally, the Department of Education found that students participating in the D.C. voucher program were significantly less likely to attend a school with ESL programs, learning support and special needs programs, tutors, and counselors.

Further, private schools are not required to hold the same level of transparency or accountability as public schools. Rather than directing these funds toward improving all of the District's public and charter schools, as Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has proposed, this program only serves 1.3 percent of the 70,000 students enrolled in the D.C. public schools.

Though my colleagues may claim to have a newfound commitment to education--my friend from the Rules Committee being an exception-- albeit for

only a few select students they have found this commitment. Let's not forget that, just a few weeks ago, some in this body and most in the Republican Party were content to cut--and my friend just used the kinship of Pell Grants with this proposal--Federal funding for 9.4 million students, to eliminate over 200,000 Head Start placements, to do away with supplementary education services for 957,000 underprivileged students, and to reduce or get rid of, they said, after-school programs for 139,000 students across this Nation.

I was just with the CEO of the Urban League's Broward and Palm Beach Counties--my constituency--and they were talking about how drastic this is going to affect the constituency in that area of underprivileged students and who they are seeing and what the juvenile justice system is now reaping from this ill harvest that we have thrust upon these people.

On the one hand, the Republicans go on about the need for fiscal discipline. They refuse to negotiate on legislation to keep the government operating, and they propose billions of dollars in cuts to our Nation's students. Yet they are perfectly willing to throw millions of dollars at a program that has proven year after year to be unpopular, inefficient, and downright ineffective.

If my colleagues truly wanted to improve the District's schools, along with the schools across the Nation, they would be bringing forth a serious measure to reform the No Child Left Behind provision. But no. Instead, we are debating a measure that has no hope of becoming law. It is simply to appease the political whims of a few in the Republican Party. The American people, in my view, are tired of the majority's using this institution to do nothing but spew ideological rhetoric.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will bring up H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, and I am mindful that there will be speakers regarding the same. The amendment will provide our government the tools to rein in unfair currency policies by the Chinese.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I am going to at this time reserve any further comments that I have after the following statement:

It has been 13 weeks and still no jobs bill and no substantive plan to improve our Nation's economy. When my friends in the majority are ready to get down to the serious business of improving the lives of all American people, we will be waiting.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before yielding, I'll one-up the one-upper: Satchel Paige also said, Don't look back.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform us as to the remaining time.

I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, my good friend, Ms. Holmes Norton, who knows more about this issue than all of us combined.

To complete her thought, I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Sort of like ``Joe DiMaggio was against vouchers.''

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield myself 10 seconds to explain that we are still on the D.C. voucher matter, but the previous question is with reference to Chinese currency.

With that, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Madam Speaker, my friend is absolutely correct about the Joe DiMaggio comment. But I've been around long enough to remember the Washington Senators. One of my personal friends played baseball with them, Earl Battey, and I won't tell you some of the things that Earl said to me when it wasn't about school vouchers.

But I leave to the seriousness of the moment 5 minutes of my remaining time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who has, with great persistence, tried to get clarity about taxation without representation.

Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend from Utah that I am going to be the last speaker.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute of that time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton.

Thank you very much, and I shall conclude.

I say to the chairman, before he leaves the room, that if any American corporation is paying 35 percent corporate tax, they need to fire their accountants.

Madam Speaker, if the people of the District of Columbia wanted a school voucher program, they would have created one--without the interference of Congress.

This pilot program was allowed to expire for a reason: It didn't work.

Why the self-proclaimed party of fiscal conservatism would support authorizing millions, 300 of those, in new spending for a downright useless program with no offset is beyond me. It is time for Republicans to take their hands out of the internal affairs of the District, and instead focus on what our constituents sent us here to do--rebuild our economy and put Americans back to work.

At a time when our Nation's schools and communities find themselves in dire fiscal straits, we should not be throwing money away to revive a program that has, by all objective measures, failed.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, so we can debate and pass real jobs legislation today, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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