Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. 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.

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

Mr. ISSA. 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.

Mr. ISSA. 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.

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

Mr. ISSA. 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?

Mr. ISSA. 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. ISSA. 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. ISSA. 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. ISSA. 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. ISSA. 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.

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

Mr. ISSA

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

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear up some facts because I believe, in the effort to try to make a point, people have failed to be quite as accurate as they should be. First of all, as for political appointees, the President has already frozen their pay. Second of all, awards, raises, and bonuses are not limited by this freeze. The fact is, if somebody is meritorious of a raise, award or bonus, he will still be able to get it. When they say that budgets have been cut, if budgets have been cut, not having this $500 million in the first year and another $500 million in the second year will, in fact, allow those budgets to go further. When they say that these are effectively meritorious, from the Office of Management and Budget of the Obama administration, we have received the figure. It is 99.94 percent of all eligible Federal employees, meaning only six out of every 10,000 employees, failed to get this automatic increase. This saves over $500 million in 7 months and over $700 million the next year. It is consistent with President Obama's freeze, and the freeze is exactly what we're trying to do--give the President what he said in the spirit in which he said it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, President Obama announced a pay freeze. Within his Executive order, he froze all pay he could freeze. The one he could not freeze was step increases. This simple amendment adds to President Obama's 2-year freeze a 7-month freeze for the period he was unable to cover of step increases. Step increases are simply pay increases because you're on the job, period. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. I won't use it all. It has been a long night, and the American people are hopefully still watching. As they watch what we are doing here and as they see people coming and crying for the Federal worker, I hope what they realize is that the Federal worker is not losing a day's pay. We are not eliminating Federal workers, and Federal workers will be able to get awards, bonuses, any meritorious increase or promotion. We are simply saying that, for 99.94 percent of all non-uniformed Federal workers, to simply get longevity increases after the President has ordered a pay freeze is disingenuous to the process. We want to be genuine to the President's Executive order and genuine to the process here. The House of Representatives rolled back our funding by 5 percent, and that was a good start; but if we don't do this, we're not even genuinely freezing the pay of our own Federal workforce. I strongly urge support for this amendment in keeping the promise of the President and the promise to the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ISSA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this week is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, and I think it is altogether fitting that we quote Ronald Reagan at a time in which, 30 years from when he said it, we're dealing with the burdens of increasing regulation creating a noncompetitive situation for American workers. It was 30 years ago that America was in a malaise. It was 30 years ago that Americans found themselves without jobs and without hope. It was 30 years ago that they elected Ronald Reagan, a man of hope and conviction to tear down anything that impeded freedom and liberty, including the growth of government, who said: ``Now let there be no misunderstanding. It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work; work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.'' When our committee put up AmericanJobCreators.com, we thought we might get a few hits. Today, the letters we have received from small and large businesses around the country, giving us with specificity regulations and regulatory excesses that are stifling their ability to create jobs, now is more pages than ObamaCare, more pages than any bill I've ever seen come from here are stacking up with specific problems that America is dealing with here today, whether it's EPA, OSHA, or just regulators who won't give an honest answer to a fair question based on laws in which we require them to provide answers. America is falling behind and American jobs are suffering. So, Madam Speaker, our committee is dedicated to ensuring that regulatory reform occurs and occurs on our watch. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. ISSA. Would it be in order for me to make such a demand?

Mr. ISSA. I was only quoting what the gentleman had said and reiterated that he still supported: Cost-benefit analysis is neither sound in theory nor useful in practice. We asked him. He said he still stands behind that. That's much broader than the gentleman said, I believe.