Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, earlier the gentleman mentioned Brazil. The bill before us would grant a blanket extension for leases in the gulf that are about to expire. And according to the Interior Department, this amendment would extend about 100 leases and costs about $6 million over 10 years. Well, 12 of those leases that would be extended automatically belong to Petrobras, the Brazilian oil giant. It would, indeed, provide a windfall given from American taxpayers to the State- owned Brazilian oil giant Petrobras. Yes, this bill in front of us now. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, Representative Castor, who, unlike some of the debaters today, is someone who actually lives on the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. May I ask the Chair the time remaining?

Mr. HOLT. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the Chair. H.R. 1229 includes language that would add a timeline to the permitting process for offshore oil and gas drilling. This provision states that, ``If the Secretary has not made a decision on the application by the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date the application is received by the Secretary, the application is deemed approved.'' My amendment would simply strike this section. In other words, as it stands in the legislation before us, if for whatever reason--incomplete information, new information--the Secretary has not made a decision whether or not to approve the application, then the application will be considered from then on approved. There are a number of provisions in this bill that could make offshore drilling less safe. My amendment is aimed at perhaps the most dangerous of those provisions. This bill short-circuits existing requirements to protect oil industry workers and those who depend on marine resources for their livelihoods and so forth. Ensuring that environmental and safety standards are met--so that the new permits will not result in a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon disaster--is really too important to allow permits to go through the door prematurely and automatically simply because of an arbitrary timeline imposed by this legislation. Depending on the dedication of a particular Secretary to safety and environmental protection, H.R. 1229 would produce either precipitous automatic approval of an application to drill or unjustified rejection of a valid application if the review is not completed within the allotted time. Either way, the imposition of an arbitrary deadline is bad policy. It's based on a presumption that environmental and safety reviews are worthless and that there is really no value in getting the review right. My amendment would leave in place the permitting timeline set in H.R. 1229, creating the sense of urgency my colleagues are seeking. But it would remove the automatic approval of drilling applications after that 60-day timeline. If we've learned anything from the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it is that we must do more--not less--to protect those who work in the oil industry and those who depend on offshore resources and onshore resources for their livelihood. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, my friend from Colorado talked about the harm that this bill would do and why it's important that the application be approved even if the review is not complete, even if the review is not yet done right. I wonder if the gentleman from Colorado thinks that maybe a student should graduate even if he hasn't taken the exam because the semester is coming to an end. Well, time's up. I guess we should just declare the student duly passed--even if the review hasn't been done. That's a question. If the gentleman feels that a student should be deemed passed because the semester is coming to an end, even if the review of that student's work has not been completed. I would yield to the gentleman if he cares to answer that. If not, I will continue. This legislation might make sense if we thought there was some economic need for it, if we thought that there was some safety need for it, if we thought it was important to grease the skids and move through the environmental review quickly. But none of those things apply. This will not bring down prices. Certainly, release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do more for prices at the pump than this. This won't make a bit of difference in the price at the pump, this legislation. It certainly won't help support an important but troubled industry. Actually, this industry is not troubled. This industry is going to take home about $100 billion dollars in profits this year. We don't need to grease the skids and make things easier for this industry because getting the review right would subject them to undue hardship. No. In fact, this is a very dangerous provision in a bill that is part of the set of ``Amnesia Acts.'' The bill is part of these three bills that pretend that there are no lessons to be learned from 2010; the bill that pretends the gulf oil blowout never occurred; that wills amnesia on the policy of the United States so that we forget that the worst oil spill in history from which there are real lessons to be learned never occurred. I urge passage of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. The authors of this bill are so eager to accelerate the giveaways to Big Oil, rather than protect the consumers, the environment and workers, that they, in their legislation, deem that the shoddy environmental analysis conducted 4 years ago, in other words, years prior to the gulf oil blowout, to be sufficient for all future lease sales in the gulf, despite their glaring deficiencies. They deem--in other words, assume, declare--that this is sufficient. Look, this environmental impact statement was not adequate then, and we know it's not adequate now. ``Deem'' is a dangerous word in legislation, especially legislation that could jeopardize worker safety and imperil the economic structure of coastal communities. My amendment would strike the language deeming the pre-spill environmental work to be sufficient and it, therefore, would require a new, updated analysis. And the administration says they intend to and are prepared to apply a strengthened environmental analysis incorporating the lessons learned. This amnesia bill before us learns no lessons from the worst environmental oil spill in our history. Just look at some of the conclusions contained in the outdated environmental analysis. The EIS determined ``the most likely size of an offshore spill greater than or equal to 1,000 barrels would be 4,600 barrels.'' So, in other words, the pre-BP spill analysis concluded that the most likely size of the largest spill that we would see in the Gulf of Mexico would be 4,600 barrels of oil. The Deepwater Horizon produced 4 million barrels spilling into the gulf. In addition, the analysis concluded that the total volume of oil that would be spilled from all spills over 40 years would be roughly 47,000 barrels of oil. That's less than what spilled from the Deepwater Horizon in 1 day. The EIS concluded that, in the worst-case scenario, something like several dozen miles of gulf coastline would be affected by the spill. In reality, it affected 950 miles of coastline, across all the Gulf States. The earlier EIS review that they would say should apply for all future drilling determined that a deepwater blowout would not present a clean-up problem because the oil would rise in a water column, surfacing almost directly above, that's their words in the EIS, that they would deem to apply, surfacing almost directly over the source location. In fact, we know the oil spewing spread in subsurface plumes for miles and miles and miles across the gulf. For commercial fisheries, the environmental statement said ``a subsurface blowout would have a negligible effect on the Gulf of Mexico fish resources or commercial fishing.'' In reality, the BP spill closed 88,000 square miles of the gulf to fishing. These are just a few examples of how this is an inadequate environmental statement. Have we learned nothing from the largest oil spill in gulf waters? It is so thoughtless and so boilerplate that it talks about protecting walruses in the Gulf of Mexico. This was a thoughtless environmental impact statement, surely not worthy of the people who live along the coast. This environmental impact statement is surely not worthy of those who make their living either in the oil business or the fishing business or any other business. The fact is, we have far more information now than we did in 2007. And after immense cost, really hard-earned knowledge, we certainly should not proceed as if nothing has happened without reassessing our assumptions and our analyses. The Department of the Interior is working to hold these sales mandated by this bill, but in a reasonable timeframe. Any leases should reflect the lessons learned from the BP spill. In other words, it should reflect reality, not some dream world. They live in a dream world economically; they live in a dream world environmentally. It is clearly a world where walruses live in the Gulf of Mexico. My amendment, I think, is a reasonable way to proceed. It would require that we do new environmental work that builds on the hard- earned lessons that we learned from the largest oil spill in the gulf waters. It ensures that future leasing in the gulf fully considers the environmental impact of drilling. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1230. This is the first in the Republican ``amnesia acts'' that ignore what happened last year in the Gulf of Mexico. It would force the Department of Interior to rush into holding new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Virginia, not far from New Jersey, I might add, even though Congress has not enacted a single piece of legislation to improve the safety of offshore drilling. The President's spill commission reported that offshore drilling in U.S. waters is four times more deadly than drilling elsewhere in the world, even for the same companies. Clearly there is a safety problem that must be addressed. And I must emphasize, because they have talked about it again and again, they are talking about high oil prices, high prices at the pump. We feel it. Everybody in America feels it. Do they address it? No, they do not address gasoline prices. It actually accelerates handouts to Big Oil, this legislation does. In addition to being silent on safety concerns, this prohibits any further environmental review in the gulf based on the lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon last year. That tragedy exposed the woefully inadequate ways in which the environmental reviews had been done in the Gulf of Mexico. Need I remind the Speaker or the majority that there are no walruses to protect in the Gulf of Mexico? As you heard from Mr. Markey, that is the level of quality in the environmental review that they want to apply from here on out. The analysis assumed that blowout preventers were capable of preventing blowouts. We know now, we have learned, they are not. The post-spill investigations have clearly demonstrated that the assumptions of the environmental review are not sufficient. I will offer an amendment shortly to drop the language that would deem this environmental review to be adequate. Despite the poor safety and environmental record accumulated in the gulf, H.R. 1230 recklessly puts the Atlantic coast at risk.

Mr. HOLT. H.R. 1230 recklessly puts the Atlantic coast at risk of experiencing an oil spill such as what we have seen before. That is why I call this an ``amnesia act.'' There are two more bills we will be seeing here on the floor that are similar. This is not in the interest of the U.S. consumer, it is not in the interest of fishermen, it is not in the interest of coastal residents. This is not in the interest of America.

Mr. HOLT. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), one of the most thoughtful members of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend, Mr. Markey, for yielding. This is about Big Oil handouts, pure and simple. There are no lessons learned, no lessons applied with regard to safety or protection of the environment. You know, if these companies were energy companies, as they like to say, they would invest more in producing sustainable, clean energy alternatives. In the long run, we all know it. We've got to face the facts. We've got to break our addiction to oil; and if the majority, the authors of this legislation, really wanted to help the motorists, the consumers, they would address speculation. They would end the speculation. They would end the tax giveaways. They would use the strategic oil reserve to short-circuit speculation. The oil companies are not energy companies. They are fleecing machines. The greatest profits of any corporation in history--and you heard me say a few minutes ago--that the biggest of them, Exxon, had an effective tax rate of about 0.4 percent. This will not help the consumer.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Our first priorities in the House of Representatives must be helping to foster job creation and supporting middle class families. More than four months into the 112th Congress, we have not considered one bill that would achieve these goals. This deceptively named bill claims that it would enact a government- wide prohibition on federal subsidies for abortion and health insurance plans that cover it. In truth it is an unprecedented and extreme attempt to limit health insurance coverage for American women, raise taxes on small businesses, infringe on the legally protected rights of American Servicewomen, and make this legal, constitutionally protected medical procedure inaccessible to women. This bill would eliminate tax credits for families and small businesses to purchase comprehensive health insurance plans. This would result in substandard health care for millions of Americans. Unprecedented, H.R. 3 would change the tax code to promote an anti- choice agenda. This bill would allow women to use tax preferred saving accounts for abortion care only in cases of rape, incest, or when their life is in danger. Under this extreme bill, women would have to prove to the IRS that they have been victim of sexual assault to use their own money for their medical care. This bill triumphs on states' rights by preventing the District of Columbia from using its own funds to pay for abortion services for low- income women. Further, it would permanently deny low-income women, federal employees, and military women access to abortion care, even when their health is at risk. It is important to remember why comprehensive health care is needed. I recently heard a heartbreaking story from one of my constituents who was desperate to have a baby with her husband. Unfortunately after getting pregnant, they discovered that the fetus had a deadly condition and was not going to survive. They were left with only one choice--to terminate the pregnancy. This couple never thought they would be in that position. This bill would deny private health insurance companies from providing this kind of medical care to women. The question of whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions any woman can face. Reproductive health care is a personal matter that should be left to individuals, their doctors, and their families without interference from the government. Rather than making abortion more dangerous for young women, I believe that Congress should do more to create the conditions that enable women to make true choices by providing comprehensive sexuality education and ensuring that women have access to a range of effective contraceptives. I oppose H.R. 3 and urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous piece of legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this rule brings forward two bills that are the first of the majority party's ``amnesia acts,'' which ignore the safety and environmental concerns that were laid bare last spring and summer by the largest oil spill in United States waters. For the sponsors of this bill, it's as if the worst and most costly oil spill in history never happened. Last week, the Big Five oil companies reported $32 billion in profits. That's just for the first 3 months of this year. Yet the majority's solution is to protect the billions of dollars of tax breaks each year for these companies. Just to give you an idea, Exxon pays an effective tax rate of 0.4 percent. I imagine every person in America would like to have a tax rate of essentially zero. Yet the majority's solution is to protect these tax breaks. Furthermore, they deem the environmental and safety regulations that existed before this accident in the gulf as satisfactory. And let's be clear: How much will these bills reduce gas prices for the American people? Zero dollars and zero cents. Scientists, engineers, and our best energy analysts say we cannot drill our way to lower gas prices. This won't do it. Let's address the financial speculation that we've heard about--the real cause of high gasoline prices. Exxon, with those huge prices, what do they do? They buy back their stock.

Mr. HOLT. These actions needlessly endanger the lives of offshore workers, imperil the resources and livelihoods of fishermen. This legislation is designed to give Big Oil more handouts. These companies are not being responsible citizens. Vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``yes'' on my amendment, vote ``no'' on the bills.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I also rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3. Our first priorities here in the House of Representatives must be helping foster job creation and supporting middle- class families. Yet, more than 4 months into this Congress, we have not considered one bill, not one bill that would achieve these goals. Instead, we have before us today H.R. 3, one of the centerpieces of the Republican agenda, and it would limit the health care choices of women. Now, even if all it did is what the name implies, to prohibit Federal subsidies for abortion, it would be redundant, unnecessary and misguided. But it's much worse than that. In truth, it's an unprecedented and extreme attempt to limit health insurance coverage for American women, to raise taxes on small businesses, to infringe on the legally protected right of American servicewomen, to make this legal, constitutionally protected medical procedure inaccessible to women. I oppose H.R. 3, and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' And I urge the majority to get to work helping Americans to get to work.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman would yield, I will add one more comment which is, I hope that this will bring the world closer together. The recognition that the killings, the evil worked by this man affected many thousands--really, hundreds of thousands around the world. I'm sure many of these people are grateful to families of those who have been killed in other countries, and so forth, are grateful for the actions of these brave Americans. But I hope that what this does is bring the countries of the world and the peoples of the world more closely together in fighting such evil.

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, and thanks for setting aside some time tonight to recognize this work by some great patriots. When I heard the news on Sunday, my thoughts turned immediately to those harmed by bin Laden's vicious attacks on our embassies, our ships, planes, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the many thousands of deaths caused by the havoc he sewed. Our hearts go out to those families. Certainly in central New Jersey, we lost hundreds and hundreds of people on September 11, but we mustn't forget those who died in the embassies a couple of years before that, those who died in the wars that followed. Middletown, New Jersey, lost more people on September 11 than any other single town, except New York City. They went off to work, not understanding that this evil was at play, that Mr. Bin Laden was plotting just the most dastardly thing that you can imagine. America's military and intelligence services demonstrated why they are known as the best in the world. Bin Laden's removal was of course not immediately the end of the threat of terrorism against the United States, but his death represents a crippling blow to the organization responsible for these many attacks over the last 13 years. It really is appropriate that we congratulate President Obama and the dedicated and brave members of our military and intelligence services for acting as they did. The President showed that he understands intelligence efforts and military operations, and the Special Forces showed that they have skills and equipment like no others. The hunt for Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders will continue. I suspect that the information gathered in the assault on bin Laden this week will speed that search. I spent a number of years on the Intelligence Committee here in the Congress and learned a great deal about the dedication and skills of these people that work behind the scenes. When the United States began its military campaign in Afghanistan nearly a decade ago, our goal was to bring to justice bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders that were responsible for the attacks. It's worth noting that the senior most al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed not in Afghanistan but in Pakistan. That fact only reinforces my conviction that the time has come for the United States to begin a swift and orderly withdrawal of our combat forces from Afghanistan, and I hope the President will heed the call of people all over the country and, I would say, all over the world to do precisely that. As we celebrate the courage and the work of the Special Forces, we must also talk about the intelligence services, where they combine enormous skill and brain power and perseverance and, yes, courage. They are frequently only one intelligence leak away from losing all their work or sometimes their lives. The fact that this has taken more than a dozen years since the bombing of the embassies to track down bin Laden and his evil operations emphasizes the need for full reliable cooperation with other countries, not intermittent sometime cooperation. It should have been, America would have wanted, the world would have wanted that this be completed sooner. So we need that international cooperation. This demonstrates it. As Mr. Clarke, our colleague, points out though, the day-to-day protection of Americans won't be done by Special Forces. It will be done by courageous Americans who do the right thing day in and day out, our local first responders, the investigators. That's how most--in fact, nearly all of the potential terrorist attacks that have been beaten, undone, have been uncovered. So this is sobering to think about what we have in front of us yet, but we know we have good people working on it. We saw that this past week, and we celebrate them and congratulate them and our leaders for carrying it out.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today to fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. The budget for the federal government is a moral document. It reflects, in dollars and cents, our priorities as a nation. My priorities include supporting programs that create jobs, promote American competitiveness, and strengthen our communities. The spending bill before us demonstrates a different set of priorities. This bill slashes $150 million from the National Science Foundation, $260 million from the National Institutes of Health, $109 million from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, $35 million from Department of Energy's Office of Science, and eliminates the summer Pell Grant program I helped establish for students who work while trying to earn a college degree. In order to out-innovate, out- educate, and out-build the rest of the world, we must preserve these investments. As our economy slowly recovers, local governments and social service agencies continue to struggle to provide critical services to their communities. This bill irresponsibly cuts state and local law enforcement grants by $414 million and cuts the COPS program, which helps police departments hire and retain officers, by nearly $300 million. These programs are not wasteful, rather they keep our neighborhoods safe and secure. This bill cuts by $600 million--or 27 percent--funding for community health centers. It cuts programs that provide food assistance to women, infants and children by half of a billion dollars and cuts nearly $1 billion from the Community Development Block Grant program. These programs are part of the safety-net that assists the most vulnerable among us in obtaining housing, health care, food and are necessary for a humane society. Inexplicably, while my Republican colleagues talk about shared sacrifice to justify these cuts, this bill increases by $5 billion funding for the Department of Defense. I am disappointed that this figure includes the $1.5 billion for Iraqi police and security forces that I attempted to save on behalf of taxpayers on the House floor earlier this year. This bill contains the wrong priorities for the middle-class New Jersey and across America, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I was detained and missed rollcall vote 250. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank my colleague from California. For 40 years, the Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing emissions in the atmosphere, pollution that kills people. Thousands of people are alive today because of the Clean Air Act. None of them know who they are. It might be people in this Chamber, some of us. And the success of the Clean Air Act is due in large part to being enacted and strengthened based on the best science available to find effective ways to remove the worst pollutants from our air. The legislation before us today--appropriately nicknamed the ``dirty air act''--would gut the Clean Air Act and prevent EPA scientists from doing their jobs. The Clean Air Act was written wisely to allow the safeguards to grow with the scientific understanding of the dangers proposed by various chemicals in the air and with the technological means for controlling those pollutants. Carbon pollution, a couple of years ago, was determined by EPA scientists to endanger the health and welfare of the American people. EPA scientists should be allowed to continue their work. Air pollution is costly in lives and in dollars. The Clean Air Act is successful. The legislation must be protected.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) and my other colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for setting aside this time. Too young, too soon, not fair, not explicable in a larger sense. It is with great sadness that we come to the floor tonight to honor the life of a fine colleague and a friend, a dedicated public servant to the State of New Jersey, John Adler. John was dedicated to the service of the people of New Jersey. His devotion to New Jersey led him to run for and win a congressional seat in 2008, as you heard from our colleague, Mr. Lance. While John ultimately was not returned to this body for this session of Congress, his legacy of public service will indeed live on. No doubt he would have continued to find ways to improve the lives of New Jerseyans. Sharing not only a State but also a hallway in the Longworth Office Building with John, I had an opportunity to get to know him fairly well. He was a wonderful colleague. I will miss, as we all will, his cheerful demeanor and wonderful sense of humor that he brought to all of his work. A sense of humor, a good spirit in good times and in bad. And I will miss his wisdom and his sharp political insight and his policy knowledge. Today, during a memorial at his funeral in New Jersey, there were several comments made, and I would like to read a few. His law school roommate and best man commented that John Adler really did believe that worrying was just a waste of time. He believed that any setback was an opportunity for something good to happen. Friends remembered that after he had been defeated but Congress was still in session for another 2 months, he continued diligently to work here in Congress. As they said, he wanted to make sure that he made it to all of the caucus meetings on time. He wanted to continue to make the right votes for the people of New Jersey. His brother-in-law commented that playing knowledge games against John was like playing against Google. He recalled John's near-brush with ``Jeopardy'' fame that fizzled after the former Congressman paid, out of his own pocket, to fly for a taping to the television program. He made it to the makeup room, and one of the functionaries asked in a formal sense whether John knew anyone who worked for ABC. And John said, Well, yes, he thought one of his law school classmates had taken a job with a station. And the producers said that was it; he couldn't participate. Said his brother-in-law: You mean you flew all the way out to California on your own dime? Why on Earth would you tell them that? And John replied, because I didn't want to lie. Shelley, John's wife, is an accomplished, lovely person. And there is every indication that their sons are as bright and public spirited as their parents. This is a real loss for many of us, as well as for the people of New Jersey. I ask that the Members of the House join me in extending our sympathy and condolences to John's family and friends and his many admirers.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in shock and sympathy at the loss, the death of John Adler, and send my sympathy and condolences to Shelley and the family. I won't recount his many accomplishments or paint a full picture of John Adler, a truly wonderful public servant. I hope there will be occasion for the testimonial and memorial here at another time. But I do want to express to his many friends and many admirers sympathy and condolences. John Adler was dedicated to the service of the people of New Jersey. And you will hear again and again, if you didn't know John, about his wonderful cheerfulness and humor that he showed in good times and in bad. A good friend to many of us, a friend to the people of New Jersey--a real loss.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Scholarship for Opportunity and Results Act'' H.R. 471. Private school vouchers are not an effective way to improve student achievement. I do not support private school voucher programs. Not only do these programs sometimes blur the line between church and state, but there is also little evidence that this type of reform actually helps students. In fact, I am very concerned that vouchers do nothing more than drain money out of our public school system, especially from the schools that need the most financial assistance from the federal government. In 2004, I opposed the creation District of Columbia's private school voucher program and I have repeatedly voted against proposals to use federal funds to support voucher programs. H.R. 471 seeks to bring back to life a failed voucher program that Congress has already voted to end. The bill before us today would spend another $100 million on a program that the evidence tells us does not work. Four separate U.S. Department of Education reports found that that the DC voucher program had no statistically significant effect on reading or math achievement. So why are we spending more today when the evidence is clear? We must not put ideology ahead of evidence. We must make decisions after weighing the evidence. If you do that, then you will oppose new funding for private school vouchers. Further, this bill does nothing to help American students in the other 50 states. Parents, teachers, students, and school officials across New Jersey want to know what we are doing to address their needs. Why are we only talking about students in the District of Columbia? I will continue to voice my opposition to this and other voucher programs that divert needed resources from our public schools and urge rejection of this measure.