[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11704-H11735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 252 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill 
H.R. 2546.

                              {time}  1257


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2546) making appropriations for the government of the 
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in 
part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of 
Washington in the chair.

[[Page H 11705]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House met on Wednesday, 
November 1, 1995, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hostettler] had been disposed of and the bill had been read 
through page 58 line 4.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I took this time, because of the limited 
debate time and the request for so many Members to speak, as a way of 
saying a couple of things that I think are important. For those who 
were not paying attention yesterday, I want to begin by extending again 
my personal thanks to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], for all the cooperation between 
them and their staff, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], as 
well, from the District of Columbia Committee, and certainly the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and all my colleagues on 
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], and others, for all of their work 
in this effort to try to bring about a consensus on this issue.

                              {time}  1300

  As many of my colleagues are aware, the Washington Post today said in 
their editorial, ``This is an education vote that counts,'' encouraging 
every Member on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on the District 
of Columbia school reform amendment that I am about to call up.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I wanted to ask for special time, however, 
is because I think it is important that we deal head on with what is 
the misunderstanding by so many Members about this voucher issue. When 
this process began we had obviously the education reform movement in 
this country that said, ``You are not going to give new money to D.C., 
you are not going to give them more opportunities to expand education 
funding, unless you get some real reforms.''
  On the other side we had the public education community that said 
very clearly, ``We are not about to support a package that creates a 
tool for taking public education dollars to fund private education 
initiatives.''
  Mr. Chairman, I thought, frankly, they were both fair. So, we have 
very carefully, very methodically, over a long period of time, 
negotiated out what is the best possible compromise we can achieve on 
this issue.
  Under a private school voucher program, if a student leaves a public 
school to attend a private school, their per capita funding goes with 
them. Money leaves that public school and goes into that private 
school.
  Mr. Chairman, I can tell my Democratic friends, I have never once 
voted for a private school voucher program during my tenure in 
Congress. I am as opposed to that as my Democrat colleagues are. This 
bill does not, does not, does not include a private school voucher. It 
is very important that Members understand that.
  In exchange for that, what we have done is we have said we will set 
up a scholarship program for District of Columbia students. We will 
provide some start-up money at the Federal level, whatever the 
appropriations process down the line will bear. And let us be honest, 
based on the present circumstances, it is not going to be a lot, but 
whatever that will bear.
  We will then allow the scholarship board, made up of seven District 
of Columbia residents, again, I underline seven District of Columbia 
residents, to go out and raise private contributions. Whatever those 
two sources of revenue produce can be used in an equal number of public 
school scholarships and private school scholarships.

  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important as we begin this process 
to understand if 100 students were to leave the District of Columbia 
public schools and to go to private schools, not one dime would leave 
the District of Columbia public school system. Not one dime would leave 
the public school system.
  We are not taking money from public schools to put it into private 
schools. This is a carefully crafted compromise. We cannot authorize 
$20 million in new education initiatives, leveraging probably twice 
that much in private resources to repair the buildings and equip the 
schools with technology equipment, without working out some kind of 
compromise on the reform issues.
  Mr. Chairman, this is as good a compromise as we can get. My 
colleagues' vote today will decide whether we have District of Columbia 
school reform, because we cannot work out an agreement that does not 
have this kind of a carefully crafted balance and get support on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] is 
absolutely correct. The time is very limited and so I would just like 
to take this opportunity to register my opposition, for I have a great 
number of speakers.
  Mr. Chairman, regarding the amendment that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin is about to present, the gentleman should be congratulated on 
the fact that he has tried to reach a consensus. The gentleman has 
worked with a lot of people. Unfortunately, in my view, the gentleman 
has not reached a consensus.
  Mr. Chairman, there are at least 20 organizations, including the 
Secretary of Education, the American Association of School 
Administrators, the Americans United for Separation of Church and 
State, that are all opposed to this.
  This is a 142-page amendment. It authorizes $100 million. It does not 
appropriate one dime. It belongs in the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities.
  There is great philosophical discord about this amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, $42 million could possibly go to private schools, and the 
bill is silent on whether those could be religious schools. I am not 
clear if they would have to be in the jurisdiction of the District or 
could be outside the District.
  Basically, this is public money, some $5 million over a 5-year 
period, public funds going to private schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment that the gentleman is 
about to offer.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. GUNDERSON

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, made in order by 
the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will designate 
the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:
              TITLE II--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOOL REFORM

     SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     School Reform Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2002. DEFINITIONS.

       Except as otherwise provided, for purposes of this title:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate;
       (B) the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor 
     and Human Resources of the Senate; and
       (C) the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate.
       (2) Authority.--The term ``Authority'' means the District 
     of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority established under section 101(a) of the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-8).
       (3) Average daily attendance.--The term ``average daily 
     attendance'', when used with respect to a school and a period 
     of time, means the aggregate attendance of the school during 
     the period divided by the number of days during the period on 
     which--
       (A) the school is in session; and
       (B) the pupils of the school are under the guidance and 
     direction of teachers.
       (4) Average daily membership.--
       (A) Individual school.--The term ``average daily 
     membership'', when used with respect to a school and a period 
     of time, means the aggregate enrollment of the school during 
     the period divided by the number of days during the period on 
     which--
       (i) the school is in session; and
       (ii) the pupils of the school are under the guidance and 
     direction of teachers.

[[Page H 11706]]

       (B) Groups of schools.--The term ``average daily 
     membership'', when used with respect to a group of schools 
     and a period of time, means the average of the average daily 
     memberships during the period of the individual schools that 
     constitute the group.
       (5) Board of education.--The term ``Board of Education'' 
     means the Board of Education of the District of Columbia.
       (6) Board of trustees.--The term ``Board of Trustees'' 
     means the governing board of a public charter school, the 
     members of which board have been selected pursuant to the 
     charter granted to the school and in a manner consistent with 
     this title.
       (7) Control period.--The term ``control period'' means a 
     period of time described in section 209 of the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-8).
       (8) Core curriculum.--The term ``core curriculum'' means 
     the concepts, factual knowledge, and skills that students in 
     the District of Columbia should learn in kindergarten through 
     12th grade in academic content areas, including, at a 
     minimum, English, mathematics, science, and history.
       (9) District of columbia council.--The term ``District of 
     Columbia Council'' means the Council of the District of 
     Columbia established pursuant to section 401 of the District 
     of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization 
     Act (D.C. Code, sec. 1-221).
       (10) District of columbia government.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``District of Columbia 
     government'' means the government of the District of 
     Columbia, including--
       (i) any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     government of the District of Columbia;
       (ii) any independent agency of the District of Columbia 
     established under part F of title IV of the District of 
     Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act;
       (iii) any other agency, board, or commission established by 
     the Mayor or the District of Columbia Council;
       (iv) the courts of the District of Columbia;
       (v) the District of Columbia Council; and
       (vi) any other agency, public authority, or public benefit 
     corporation that has the authority to receive monies directly 
     or indirectly from the District of Columbia (other than 
     monies received from the sale of goods, the provision of 
     services, or the loaning of funds to the District of 
     Columbia).
       (B) Exceptions.--The term ``District of Columbia 
     government'' does not include the following:
       (i) The Authority.
       (ii) A public charter school.
       (11) District of columbia government retirement system.--
     The term ``District of Columbia government retirement 
     system'' means the retirement programs authorized by the 
     District of Columbia Council or the Congress for employees of 
     the District of Columbia government.
       (12) District of columbia public school.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``District of Columbia public 
     school'' means a public school in the District of Columbia 
     that offers classes--
       (i) at any of the grade levels from prekindergarten through 
     the 12th grade; or
       (ii) leading to a general education diploma.
       (B) Exception.--The term does not include a public charter 
     school.
       (13) District of columbia public schools.--The term 
     ``District of Columbia public schools'' means all schools 
     that are District of Columbia public schools.
       (14) District-wide assessments.--The term ``district-wide 
     assessments'' means reliable and unbiased student assessments 
     administered by the Superintendent to students enrolled in 
     District of Columbia public schools and public charter 
     schools.
       (15) Eligible applicant.--The term ``eligible applicant'' 
     means a person, including a private, public, or quasi-public 
     entity and an institution of higher education (as defined in 
     section 481 of the Higher Education Act of 1965), who seeks 
     to establish a public charter school.
       (16) Eligible chartering authority.--The term ``eligible 
     chartering authority'' means any of the following:
       (A) The Board of Education.
       (B) Any of the following public or federally-chartered 
     universities:
       (i) Howard University.
       (ii) Gallaudet University.
       (iii) American University.
       (iv) George Washington University.
       (v) The University of the District of Columbia.
       (C) Any other entity designated by enactment of a bill as 
     an eligible chartering authority by the District of Columbia 
     Council after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (17) Facilities management.--The term ``facilities 
     management'' means the administration, construction, 
     renovation, repair, maintenance, remodeling, improvement, or 
     other oversight, of a building or real property of a District 
     of Columbia public school. The term does not include the 
     performance of any such act with respect to real property 
     owned by a public charter school.
       (18) Family resource center.--The term ``family resource 
     center'' means an information desk--
       (A) located at a school with a majority of students whose 
     family income is not greater than 185 percent of the poverty 
     guidelines updated annually in the Federal Register by the 
     Department of Health and Human Services under authority of 
     section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1981; and
       (B) which links students and families to local resources 
     and public and private entities involved in child care, adult 
     education, health and social services, tutoring, mentoring, 
     and job training.
       (19) Long-term reform plan.--The term ``long-term reform 
     plan'' means the plan submitted by the Superintendent under 
     section 2101.
       (20) Mayor.--The term ``Mayor'' means the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia.
       (21) Metrobus and metrorail transit system.--The term 
     ``Metrobus and Metrorail Transit System'' means the bus and 
     rail systems administered by the Washington Metropolitan Area 
     Transit Authority.
       (22) Minor student.--The term ``minor student'' means an 
     individual who--
       (A) is enrolled in a District of Columbia public schools or 
     a public charter school; and
       (B) is not beyond the age of compulsory school attendance, 
     as prescribed in section 1 of article I, and section 1 of 
     article II, of the Act of February 4, 1925 (sections 31-401 
     and 31-402, D.C. Code).
       (23) Nonresident student.--The term ``nonresident student'' 
     means--
       (A) an individual under the age of 18 who is enrolled in a 
     District of Columbia public school or a public charter 
     school, and does not have a parent residing in the District 
     of Columbia; or
       (B) an individual who is age 18 or older and is enrolled in 
     a District of Columbia public school or public charter 
     school, and does not reside in the District of Columbia.
       (24) Panel.--The term ``Panel'' means the World Class 
     Schools Panel established under subtitle D.
       (25) Parent.--The term ``parent'' means a person who has 
     custody of a child enrolled in a District of Columbia public 
     school or a public charter school, and who--
       (A) is a natural parent of the child;
       (B) is a stepparent of the child;
       (C) has adopted the child; or
       (D) is appointed as a guardian for the child by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction.
       (26) Petition.--The term ``petition'' means a written 
     application, submitted by an eligible applicant to an 
     eligible chartering authority, to establish a public charter 
     school.
       (27) Promotion gate.--The term ``promotion gate'' means the 
     criteria, developed by the Superintendent and approved by the 
     Board of Education, that are used to determine student 
     promotion at different grade levels. Such criteria shall 
     include achievement on district-wide assessments that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, measure student achievement of 
     the core curriculum.
       (28) Public charter school.--The term ``public charter 
     school'' means a publicly funded school in the District of 
     Columbia that is established pursuant to subtitle B. A public 
     charter school is not a part of the District of Columbia 
     public schools.
       (29) School.--The term ``school'' means--
       (A) a public charter school; or
       (B) any other day or residential school that provides 
     elementary or secondary education, as determined under State 
     or District of Columbia law.
       (30) Student with special needs.--The term ``student with 
     special needs'' has the meaning given such term by the Mayor 
     and the District of Columbia Council under section 2301.
       (31) Superintendent.--The term ``Superintendent'' means the 
     Superintendent of the District of Columbia public schools.
       (32) Teacher.--The term ``teacher'' means any person 
     employed as a teacher by the Board of Education or by a 
     public charter school.
              Subtitle A--District of Columbia Reform Plan

     SEC. 2101. LONG-TERM REFORM PLAN.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Plan.--The Superintendent, with the approval of the 
     Board of Education, shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees, the Mayor, the District of Columbia 
     Council, and the Authority a long-term reform plan, not later 
     than February 1, 1996. The plan shall be consistent with the 
     financial plan and budget for the District of Columbia for 
     fiscal year 1996 required under section 201 of the District 
     of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-8).
       (2) Consultation.--
       (A) In general.--In developing the long-term reform plan, 
     the Superintendent--
       (i) shall consult with the Board of Education, Mayor, and 
     District of Columbia Council, and, in a control period, with 
     the Authority; and
       (ii) shall afford the public, interested organizations, and 
     groups an opportunity to present their views and make 
     recommendations regarding the long-term reform plan.
       (B) Summary of recommendations.--The Superintendent shall 
     include in the long-term plan a summary of the 
     recommendations made under subparagraph (A)(ii) and the 
     response of the Superintendent to these recommendations.
       (b) Contents.--
       (1) Areas to be addressed.--The long-term plan shall 
     describe how the District of Columbia public schools will 
     become a world-class education system which prepares students 
     for life-time learning in the 21st century and which is on a 
     par with the best education systems of other nations. The 
     plan shall include a description of how the District of 
     Columbia public schools will accomplish the following:
       (A) Achievement at nationally- and internationally-
     competitive levels by students attending District of Columbia 
     public schools.

[[Page H 11707]]

       (B) The creation of a performance-oriented workforce.
       (C) The construction and repair of District of Columbia 
     public school facilities.
       (D) Local school governance, decentralization, autonomy, 
     and parental choice among District of Columbia public 
     schools; and
       (E) The implementation of an efficient and effective adult 
     literacy program.
       (2) Other information.--For each of the items in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (1), the long-term 
     plan shall include--
       (A) a statement of measurable, objective performance goals;
       (B) a description of the measures of performance to be used 
     in determining whether the Superintendent and Board of 
     Education have met the goals;
       (C) dates by which the goals must be met;
       (D) plans for monitoring and reporting progress to District 
     of Columbia residents, the appropriate congressional 
     committees, the Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, and 
     the Authority; and
       (E) the title of the management employee of the District of 
     Columbia public schools most directly responsible for the 
     achievement of each goal and, with respect to each such 
     employee, the title of the employee's immediate supervisor or 
     superior.
       (c) Amendments.--The Superintendent, with the approval of 
     the Board of Education, shall submit any amendment to the 
     long-term plan to the appropriate congressional committees. 
     Any amendment to the long-term plan shall be consistent with 
     the financial plan and budget for fiscal year 1996 for the 
     District of Columbia required under section 201 of the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-8).
                   Subtitle B--Public Charter Schools

     SEC. 2151. PROCESS FOR FILING CHARTER PETITIONS.

       (a) Existing Public School.--An eligible applicant seeking 
     to convert an existing District of Columbia public school 
     into a public charter school--
       (1) shall prepare a petition to establish a public charter 
     school that meets the requirements of section 2152;
       (2) shall provide a copy of the petition to--
       (A) the parents of minor students attending the existing 
     school;
       (B) adult students attending the existing school; and
       (C) employees of the existing school;
       (3) shall file the petition with an eligible chartering 
     authority for approval after the petition--
       (A) has been signed by a majority of the total number of--
       (i) parents of minor students attending the school; and
       (ii) adult students attending the school; and
       (B) has been endorsed by at least a majority of full-time 
     teachers at the school; and
       (4) shall explain in the petition the relationship that 
     will exist between the public charter school and its 
     employees.
       (b) Independent or Private School.--An eligible applicant 
     seeking to convert an existing independent or private school 
     in the District of Columbia into a public charter school--
       (1) shall prepare a petition to establish a public charter 
     school that meets the requirements of section 2152;
       (2) shall provide a copy of the petition to--
       (A) the parents of minor students attending the existing 
     school;
       (B) adult students attending the existing school; and
       (C) employees of the existing school;
       (3) shall file the petition with an eligible chartering 
     authority for approval after the petition--
       (A) has been signed by a majority of the total number of--
       (i) parents of minor students attending the school; and
       (ii) adult students attending the school; and
       (B) has been endorsed by at least a majority of full-time 
     teachers at the school; and
       (4) shall explain in the petition the relationship that 
     will exist between the public charter school and its 
     employees.
       (c) New School.--An eligible applicant seeking to establish 
     in the District of Columbia a public charter school, but not 
     seeking to convert an existing public, private, or 
     independent school into a public charter school, shall file 
     with an eligible chartering authority for approval a petition 
     to establish a public charter school that meets the 
     requirements of section 2152.

     SEC. 2152. CONTENTS OF PETITION.

       A petition to establish a public charter school shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A statement defining the mission and goals of the 
     proposed school.
       (2) A statement of the need for the proposed school in the 
     geographic area of the school site.
       (3) A description of the proposed instructional goals and 
     methods for the school, which includes, at a minimum--
       (A) the methods that will be used to provide students with 
     the knowledge, proficiency, and skills needed--
       (i) to become nationally and internationally competitive 
     students and educated individuals in the 21st century; and
       (ii) to perform competitively on any districtwide 
     assessments; and
       (B) the methods that will be used to improve student self-
     motivation, classroom instruction, and learning for all 
     students.
       (4) A description of the plan for evaluating student 
     academic achievement of the proposed school and the 
     procedures for remedial action that will be used by the 
     school when the academic achievement of a student falls below 
     the expectations of the school.
       (5) An operating budget for the first 2 years of the 
     proposed school that is based on anticipated enrollment and 
     contains--
       (A) a description of the method for conducting annual 
     audits of the financial, administrative, and programmatic 
     operations of the school;
       (B) either--
       (i) an identification of the site where the school will be 
     located, including a description of any buildings on the site 
     and any buildings proposed to be constructed on the site; or
       (ii) a timetable by which a such an identification will be 
     made;
       (C) a description of any major contracts planned, with a 
     value equal to or exceeding $10,000, for equipment and 
     services, leases, improvements, purchases of real property, 
     or insurance; and
       (D) a timetable for commencing operations as a public 
     charter school.
       (6) A description of the proposed rules and policies for 
     governance and operation of the school.
       (7) Copies of the proposed articles of incorporation and 
     bylaws of the school.
       (8) The names and addresses of the members of the proposed 
     Board of Trustees.
       (9) A description of the student enrollment, admission, 
     suspension, and expulsion policies and procedures of the 
     proposed school, and the criteria for making decisions in 
     such areas.
       (10) A description of the procedures the school plans to 
     follow to ensure the health and safety of students, 
     employees, and guests of the school and to comply with 
     applicable health and safety laws and regulations of the 
     Federal Government and the District of Columbia.
       (11) An explanation of the qualifications that will be 
     required of employees of the proposed school.
       (12) An identification, and a description, of the 
     individuals and entities submitting the application, 
     including their names and addresses, and the names of the 
     organizations or corporations of which such individuals are 
     directors or officers.

     SEC. 2153. PROCESS FOR APPROVING OR DENYING CHARTER 
                   PETITIONS.

       (a) Schedule.--An eligible chartering authority may 
     establish a schedule for receiving petitions to establish a 
     public charter school and shall publish any such schedule in 
     the District of Columbia Register. An eligible chartering 
     authority shall make a copy of any such schedule available to 
     all interested persons upon request.
       (b) Public Hearing.--Not later than 45 days after a 
     petition to establish a public charter school is filed with 
     an eligible chartering authority, the authority shall hold a 
     public hearing on the petition to gather the information that 
     is necessary for the authority to make the decision to 
     approve or deny the petition.
       (c) Notice.--Not later than 10 days prior to the scheduled 
     date of a public hearing on a petition to establish a public 
     charter school, an eligible chartering authority--
       (1) shall publish a notice of the hearing in the District 
     of Columbia Register; and
       (2) shall send a written notification of the hearing date 
     to the eligible applicant who filed the petition.
       (d) Approval or Denial.--Subject to subsection (i), an 
     eligible chartering authority shall approve a petition to 
     establish a public charter school, if--
       (1) the authority determines that the petition satisfies 
     the requirements of this subtitle; and
       (2) the eligible applicant who filed the petition agrees to 
     satisfy any condition or requirement, consistent with this 
     title and other applicable law, that is set forth in writing 
     by the eligible chartering authority as an amendment to the 
     petition.
       (e) Timetable.--An eligible chartering authority shall 
     approve or deny a petition to establish a public charter 
     school not later than 45 days after the conclusion of the 
     public hearing on the petition.
       (f) Extension.--An eligible chartering authority and an 
     eligible applicant may agree to extend the 45-day time period 
     referred to in subsection (e) by a period that does not 
     exceed 30 days.
       (g) Explanation.--If an eligible chartering authority 
     denies a petition or finds it to be incomplete, the authority 
     shall specify in writing the reasons for its decision and 
     indicate, when appropriate, how the eligible applicant who 
     filed the petition may revise the petition to satisfy the 
     requirements for approval.
       (h) Approved Petition.--
       (1) Notice.--Not later than 10 days after an eligible 
     chartering authority approves a petition to establish a 
     public charter school, the authority shall provide a written 
     notice of the approval, including a copy of the approved 
     petition and any conditions or requirements agreed to under 
     subsection (d)(2), to the eligible applicant and to the Chief 
     Financial Officer of the District of Columbia. The eligible 
     chartering authority shall publish a notice of the approval 
     of the petition in the District of Columbia Register.
       (2) Charter.--The provisions of a petition to establish a 
     public charter school that has been approved by an eligible 
     chartering authority, together with any amendments to 

[[Page H 11708]]

     the petition containing conditions or requirements agreed to 
     by the eligible applicant under subsection (d)(2), shall be 
     considered a charter granted to the school by the authority.
       (i) Special Rules for First Year.--During the one-year 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     each eligible chartering authority--
       (1) may approve not more than one petition filed by an 
     eligible applicant seeking to convert an existing independent 
     or private school into a public charter school; and
       (2) in considering a petition to establish a public charter 
     school filed by any eligible applicant, shall consider 
     whether the school will focus on students with special needs.
       (j) Exclusive Authority of Chartering Authority.--
     Notwithstanding any other Federal law or law of the District 
     of Columbia, no governmental entity, elected official, or 
     employee of the District of Columbia may make, participate in 
     making, or intervene in the making of, the decision to 
     approve or deny a petition to establish a public charter 
     school, except the eligible chartering authority with which 
     the petition was filed.

     SEC. 2154. DUTIES AND POWERS OF, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS ON, 
                   PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       (a) Duties.--A public charter school shall comply with--
       (1) this subtitle;
       (2) any other provision of law applicable to the school; 
     and
       (3) all of the terms and provisions of its charter.
       (b) Powers.--A public charter school shall have all of the 
     powers necessary for carrying out its charter, including the 
     following powers:
       (1) To adopt a name and corporate seal, but only if the 
     name selected includes the words ``public charter school''.
       (2) To acquire real property for use as its school 
     facilities, from public or private sources.
       (3) To receive and disburse funds for school purposes.
       (4) Subject to subsection (c)(1), to secure appropriate 
     insurance and to make contracts and leases, including 
     agreements to procure or purchase services, equipment, and 
     supplies.
       (5) To incur debt in reasonable anticipation of the receipt 
     of funds from the general fund of the District of Columbia or 
     the receipt of other Federal or private funds.
       (6) To solicit and accept any grants or gifts for school 
     purposes, if the school--
       (A) does not accept any grants or gifts subject to any 
     condition contrary to law or contrary to the terms of the 
     petition to establish the school as a public charter school; 
     and
       (B) maintains separate accounts for grants or gifts for 
     financial reporting purposes.
       (7) To be responsible for its own operation, including 
     preparation of a budget and personnel matters.
       (8) To sue and be sued in its own name.
       (c) Prohibitions and Other Requirements.--
       (1) Contracting authority.--
       (A) Notice requirement.--Except in the case of an 
     emergency, with respect to any contract proposed to be 
     awarded by a public charter school and having a value equal 
     to or exceeding $10,000, the school shall publish a notice of 
     a request for proposals in the District of Columbia Register 
     not less than 30 days prior to the award of the contract.
       (B) Submission to authority.--
       (i) Deadline for submission.--With respect to any contract 
     described in subparagraph (A) that is awarded by a public 
     charter school, the school shall submit to the Authority, not 
     later than 3 days after the date on which the award is made, 
     all bids for the contract received by the school, the name of 
     the contractor who is awarded the contract, and the rationale 
     for the award of the contract.
       (ii) Effective date of contract.--

       (I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), a contract 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall become effective on the 
     date that is 15 days after the date the school makes the 
     submission under clause (i) with respect to the contract, or 
     the effective date specified in the contract, whichever is 
     later.
       (II) Exception.--A contract described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall be considered null and void if the Authority 
     determines, within 12 days of the date the school makes the 
     submission under clause (i) with respect to the contract, 
     that the contract endangers the economic viability of the 
     public charter school.

       (2) Tuition.--A public charter school may not charge 
     tuition, fees, or other mandatory payments, except to 
     nonresident students.
       (3) Control.--A public charter school--
       (A) shall exercise exclusive control over its expenditures, 
     administration, personnel, and instructional methods, within 
     the limitations imposed in this title; and
       (B) shall be exempt from statutes, policies, rules, and 
     regulations governing District of Columbia public schools 
     established by the Superintendent, Board of Education, Mayor, 
     District of Columbia Council, or Authority, except as 
     otherwise provided in this title or in the charter granted to 
     the school.
       (4) Audits.--A public charter school shall be subject to 
     the same financial audits, audit procedures, and fiduciary 
     requirements as a District of Columbia public school.
       (5) Governance.--A public charter school shall be governed 
     by a Board of Trustees in a manner consistent with the 
     charter granted to the school, the provisions of this title, 
     and any other law applicable to the school.
       (6) Other staff.--No employee of the District of Columbia 
     public schools may be required to accept employment with, or 
     be assigned to, a public charter school.
       (7) Other students.--No student enrolled in a District of 
     Columbia public school may be required to attend a public 
     charter school.
       (8) Taxes or bonds.--A public charter school shall not levy 
     taxes or issue bonds.
       (9) Charter revision.--A public charter school seeking to 
     revise its charter shall prepare a petition for approval of 
     the revision and file it with the eligible chartering 
     authority that granted the charter. The provisions of section 
     2153 shall apply to such a petition in the same manner as 
     such provisions apply to a petition to establish a public 
     charter school.
       (10) Annual report.--
       (A) In general.--A public charter school shall submit an 
     annual report to the eligible chartering authority that 
     approved its charter and to the Authority. The school shall 
     permit a member of the public to review any such report upon 
     request.
       (B) Contents.--A report submitted under subparagraph (A) 
     shall include the following data:
       (i) Student performance on any district-wide assessments.
       (ii) Grade advancement for students enrolled in the public 
     charter school.
       (iii) Graduation rates, college admission test scores, and 
     college admission rates, if applicable.
       (iv) Types and amounts of parental involvement.
       (v) Official student enrollment.
       (vi) Average daily attendance.
       (vii) Average daily membership.
       (viii) A financial statement audited by an independent 
     certified public accountant.
       (ix) A list of all donors and grantors that have 
     contributed monetary or in-kind donations having a value 
     equal or exceeding $500 during the year that is the subject 
     of the report.
       (C) Nonidentifying data.--Data described in subparagraph 
     (B) that are included in an annual report may not identify 
     the individuals to whom the data pertain.
       (11) Student enrollment report.--A public charter school 
     shall report to the Mayor and the District of Columbia 
     Council annual student enrollment on a grade-by-grade basis, 
     including students with special needs, in a manner and form 
     that permits the Mayor and the District of Columbia Council 
     to comply with subtitle E.
       (12) Census.--A public charter school shall provide to the 
     Board of Education student enrollment data necessary for the 
     Board to comply with section 3 of article II of the Act of 
     February 4, 1925 (D.C. Code, sec. 31-404) (relating to census 
     of minors).
       (13) Complaint resolution process.--A public charter school 
     shall establish an informal complaint resolution process.
       (14) Program of education.--A public charter school shall 
     provide a program of education which shall include one or 
     more of the following:
       (A) Pre-school.
       (B) Pre-kindergarten.
       (C) Any grade or grades from kindergarten through 12th 
     grade.
       (D) Adult community, continuing, and vocational education 
     programs.
       (15) Nonsectarian nature of schools.--A public charter 
     school shall be nonsectarian.
       (16) Nonprofit status of school.--A public charter school 
     shall be organized under the District of Columbia Nonprofit 
     Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-501 et seq.).
       (17) Immunity from civil liability.--
       (A) In general.--A public charter school, and its 
     incorporators, Board of Trustees, officers, employees, and 
     volunteers, shall be immune from civil liability, both 
     personally and professionally, for any act or omission within 
     the scope of their official duties unless the act or 
     omission--
       (i) constitutes gross negligence;
       (ii) constitutes an intentional tort; or
       (iii) is criminal in nature.
       (B) Common law immunity preserved.--Subparagraph (A) shall 
     not be construed to abrogate any immunity under common law of 
     a person described in such subparagraph.

     SEC. 2155. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF A PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL.

       (a) Board of Trustees.--The members of a Board of Trustees 
     of a public charter school shall be elected or selected 
     pursuant to the charter granted to the school. Such a board 
     shall have an odd number of members that does not exceed 7, 
     of which--
       (1) a majority shall be residents of the District of 
     Columbia; and
       (2) at least 2 shall be a parent of a student attending the 
     school.
       (b) Eligibility.--An individual is eligible for election or 
     selection to the Board of Trustees of a public charter school 
     if the person--
       (1) is a teacher or staff member who is employed at the 
     school;
       (2) is a parent of a student attending the school; or
       (3) meets the selection or election criteria set forth in 
     the charter granted to the school.
       (c) Election or Selection of Parents.--In the case of the 
     first Board of Trustees of a public charter school to be 
     elected or selected after the date on which the school is 
     granted a charter, the election or selection of the members 
     under subsection (a)(2) shall occur on the earliest 
     practicable date after classes at the school have commenced. 
     Until 

[[Page H 11709]]

     such date, any other members who have been elected or 
     selected shall serve as an interim Board of Trustees. Such an 
     interim board may exercise all of the powers, and shall be 
     subject to all of the duties, of a Board of Trustees.
       (d) Fiduciaries.--The Board of Trustees of a public charter 
     school shall be fiduciaries of the school and shall set 
     overall policy for the school. The Board of Trustees may make 
     final decisions on matters related to the operation of the 
     school, consistent with the charter granted to the school, 
     this title, and other applicable law.

     SEC. 2156. STUDENT ADMISSION, ENROLLMENT, AND WITHDRAWAL.

       (a) Open Enrollment.--Enrollment in a public charter school 
     shall be open to all students who are residents of the 
     District of Columbia and, if space is available, to 
     nonresident students who meet the tuition requirement in 
     subsection (e).
       (b) Criteria for Admission.--A public charter school may 
     not limit enrollment on the basis of a student's intellectual 
     or athletic ability, measures of achievement or aptitude, or 
     a student's disability. A public charter school may limit 
     enrollment to specific grade levels or areas of focus of the 
     school, such as mathematics, science, or the arts, where such 
     a limitation is consistent with the charter granted to the 
     school.
       (c) Random Selection.--If there are more applications to 
     enroll in a public charter school from students who are 
     residents of the District of Columbia than there are spaces 
     available, students shall be admitted using a random 
     selection process.
       (d) Admission to an Existing School.--During the 5-year 
     period beginning on the date that a petition, filed by an 
     eligible applicant seeking to convert an existing public, 
     private, or independent school into a public charter school, 
     is approved, the school shall give priority in enrollment 
     to--
       (1) students enrolled in the school at the time that the 
     petition is granted;
       (2) the siblings of students described in paragraph (1); 
     and
       (3) in the case of the conversion of an existing public 
     school, students who reside within the attendance boundaries, 
     if any, in which the school is located.
       (e) Nonresident Students.--Nonresident students shall pay 
     tuition to a public charter school at the current rate 
     established for District of Columbia public schools 
     administered by the Board of Education for the type of 
     program in which the student has enrolled.
       (f) Student Withdrawal.--A student may withdraw from a 
     public charter school at any time and, if otherwise eligible, 
     enroll in a District of Columbia public school administered 
     by the Board of Education.
       (g) Expulsion and Suspension.--The principal of a public 
     charter school may expel or suspend a student from the school 
     based on criteria set forth in the charter granted to the 
     school.

     SEC. 2157. EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Extended Leave of Absence Without Pay.--
       (1) Leave of absence from district of columbia public 
     schools.--The Superintendent shall grant, upon request, an 
     extended leave of absence, without pay, to an employee of the 
     District of Columbia public schools for the purpose of 
     permitting the employee to accept a position at a public 
     charter school for a 2-year term.
       (2) Request for extension.--At the end of a 2-year term 
     referred to in paragraph (1), an employee granted an extended 
     leave of absence without pay under the paragraph may submit a 
     request to the Superintendent for an extension of the leave 
     of absence for an additional 2-year term. The Superintendent 
     may not unreasonably withhold approval of the request.
       (3) Rights upon termination of leave.--An employee granted 
     an extended leave of absence without pay for the purpose 
     described in paragraph (1) shall have the same rights and 
     benefits under law upon termination of such leave of absence 
     as an employee of the District of Columbia public schools who 
     is granted an extended leave of absence without pay for any 
     other purpose.
       (b) Retirement System.--
       (1) Creditable service.--An employee of a public charter 
     school who has received a leave of absence under subsection 
     (a) shall receive creditable service, as defined in section 
     2604 of D.C. Law 2-139, effective March 3, 1979, (D.C. Code, 
     sec. 1-627.4) and the rules established under such section, 
     for the period of the employee's employment at the public 
     charter school.
       (2) Authority to establish separate system.--A public 
     charter school may establish a retirement system for 
     employees under its authority.
       (3) Election of retirement system.--A former employee of 
     the District of Columbia public schools who become an 
     employee of a public charter school within 60 after the date 
     the employee's employment with the District of Columbia 
     public schools is terminated may, at the time the employee 
     commences employment with the public charter school, elect--
       (A) to remain in a District of Columbia government 
     retirement system and continue to receive creditable service 
     for the period of their employment at a public charter 
     school; or
       (B) to transfer into a retirement system established by the 
     public charter school pursuant to paragraph (2) .
       (4) Prohibited employment conditions.--No public charter 
     school may require a former employee of the District of 
     Columbia public schools to transfer to the public charter 
     school's retirement system as a condition of employment.
       (5) Contributions.--
       (A) Employees electing not to transfer.--In the case of a 
     former employee of the District of Columbia public schools 
     who elects to remain in a District of Columbia government 
     retirement system pursuant to paragraph (3)(A), the public 
     charter school that employs the person shall make the same 
     contribution to such system on behalf of the person as the 
     District of Columbia would have been required to make if the 
     person had continued to be an employee of the District of 
     Columbia public schools.
       (B) Employees electing to transfer.--In the case of a 
     former employee of the District of Columbia public schools 
     who elects to transfer into a retirement system of a public 
     charter school pursuant to paragraph (3)(B), the applicable 
     District of Columbia government retirement system from which 
     the former employee is transferring shall compute the 
     employee's contribution to that system and transfer this 
     amount, to the retirement system by the public charter 
     school.
       (c) Employment Status.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, an employee of a public charter school shall not be 
     considered to be an employee of the District of Columbia 
     government for any purpose.

     SEC. 2158. REDUCED FARES FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

       A student attending a public charter school shall be 
     eligible for reduced fares on the Metrobus and Metrorail 
     Transit System on the same terms and conditions as are 
     applicable under section 2 of D.C. Law 2-152, effective March 
     9, 1979, (D.C. Code, sec. 44-216 et seq.) to a student 
     attending a District of Columbia public school.

     SEC. 2159. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOL SERVICES TO 
                   PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       The Superintendent may provide services such as facilities 
     maintenance to public charter schools. All compensation for 
     costs of such services shall be subject to negotiation and 
     mutual agreement between a public charter school and the 
     Superintendent.

     SEC. 2160. APPLICATION OF LAW.

       (a) Elementary and Secondary Education Act.--
       (1) Treatment as local educational agency.--For any fiscal 
     year, a public charter school shall be considered to be a 
     local educational agency for purposes of part A of title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and shall 
     be eligible for assistance under such part, if the percentage 
     of pupils enrolled in the public charter school during the 
     preceding fiscal year who were eligible for, and received, 
     free or reduced price school lunches under the National 
     School Lunch Act is equal to or greater than the lowest such 
     percentage for any District of Columbia public school that 
     was selected to provide services under section 1113 of such 
     Act for such preceding year.
       (2) Allocation for fiscal years 1996 through 1998.--
       (A) Public charter schools.--For fiscal years 1996 through 
     1998, each public charter school that is eligible to receive 
     assistance under part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall receive a portion of 
     the District of Columbia's total allocation under such part 
     which bears the same ratio to such total allocation as the 
     number described in subparagraph (C) bears to the number 
     described in subparagraph (D).
       (B) District of columbia public schools.--For fiscal years 
     1996 through 1998, the District of Columbia public schools 
     shall receive a portion of the District of Columbia's total 
     allocation under part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 which bears the same ratio to 
     such total allocation as the total of the numbers described 
     in clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (2)(D) bears to the 
     aggregate total described in paragraph (2)(D).
       (C) Number of eligible pupils enrolled in the public 
     charter school.--The number described in this subparagraph is 
     the number of pupils enrolled in the public charter school 
     during the preceding fiscal year who were eligible for, and 
     received, free or reduced price school lunches under the 
     National School Lunch Act.
       (D) Aggregate number of eligible pupils.--The number 
     described in this subparagraph is the aggregate total of the 
     following numbers:
       (i) The number of pupils enrolled during the preceding 
     fiscal year in all eligible public charter schools who were 
     eligible for, and received, free or reduced price school 
     lunches under the National School Lunch Act.
       (ii) The number of pupils who, during the preceding fiscal 
     year--

       (I) were enrolled in a District of Columbia public school 
     selected to provide services under section 1113 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
       (II) were eligible for, and received, free or reduced price 
     school lunches under the National School Lunch Act.

       (iii) The number of pupils who, during the preceding fiscal 
     year--

       (I) were enrolled in a private or independent school;
       (II) were eligible for, and received, free or reduced price 
     school lunches under the National School Lunch Act; and

[[Page H 11710]]

       (III) resided in an attendance area of a District of 
     Columbia public school selected to provide services under 
     section 1113 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965.

       (3) Allocation for fiscal year 1999 and thereafter.--
       (A) Calculation by secretary.--Notwithstanding sections 
     1124(a)(2), 1124(c)(2), 1124A(a)(4), 1125(c)(2), and 1125(d) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, for 
     fiscal year 1999 and fiscal years thereafter, the total 
     allocation under part A of title I of such Act for all local 
     educational agencies in the District of Columbia, including 
     public charter schools that are eligible to receive 
     assistance under such part, shall be calculated by the 
     Secretary of Education. In making such calculation, such 
     Secretary shall treat all such local educational agencies as 
     if they were a single local educational agency for the 
     District of Columbia.
       (B) Allocation.--
       (i) Public charter schools.--For fiscal year 1999 and 
     fiscal years thereafter, each public charter school that is 
     eligible to receive assistance under part A of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall receive 
     a portion of the total allocation calculated under 
     subparagraph (A) which bears the same ratio to such total 
     allocation as the number described in paragraph (2)(C) bears 
     to the number described in paragraph (2)(D).
       (ii) District of columbia public schools.--For fiscal year 
     1999 and fiscal years thereafter, the District of Columbia 
     public schools shall receive a portion of the total 
     allocation calculated under subparagraph (A) which bears the 
     same ratio to such total allocation as the total of the 
     numbers described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 
     (2)(D) bears to the aggregate total described in paragraph 
     (2)(D).
       (4) Use of esea funds.--The Board of Education may not 
     direct a public charter school in the charter school's use of 
     funds under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (5) Inapplicability of certain esea provisions.--The 
     following provisions of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 shall not apply to a public charter 
     school:
       (A) Paragraphs (5), (8), and (9) of section 1112(b).
       (B) Subsection 1112(c).
       (C) Section 1113.
       (D) Section 1115A.
       (E) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 1116.
       (F) Subsections (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of section 
     1118.
       (G) Section 1120.
       (H) Subsections (a) and (c) of section 1120A.
       (I) Section 1120B.
       (J) Section 1126.
       (b) Property and Sales Taxes.--A public charter school 
     shall be exempt from District of Columbia property and sales 
     taxes.

     SEC. 2161. POWERS AND DUTIES OF ELIGIBLE CHARTERING 
                   AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Oversight.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible chartering authority--
       (A) shall monitor the operations of each public charter 
     school to which the authority has granted a charter;
       (B) shall ensure that each such school complies with 
     applicable laws and the provisions of the charter granted to 
     the school; and
       (C) shall monitor the progress of each such school in 
     meeting student academic achievement expectations specified 
     in the charter granted to the school.
       (2) Production of books and records.--An eligible 
     chartering authority may require a public charter school to 
     which the authority has granted a charter to produce any 
     book, record, paper, or document, if the authority determines 
     that such production is necessary for the authority to carry 
     out its functions under this title.
       (b) Fees.--
       (1) Application fee.--An eligible chartering authority may 
     charge an eligible applicant a fee, not to exceed $150, for 
     processing a petition to establish a public charter school.
       (2) Administration fee.--In the case of an eligible 
     chartering authority that has granted a charter to an public 
     charter school, the authority may charge the school a fee, 
     not to exceed one-half of one percent of the annual budget of 
     the school, to cover the cost of undertaking the ongoing 
     administrative responsibilities of the authority with respect 
     to the school that are described in this subtitle. The school 
     shall pay the fee to the eligible chartering authority not 
     later than November 15 of each year.
       (c) Immunity from Civil Liability.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible chartering authority, a 
     governing board of such an authority, and the directors, 
     officers, employees, and volunteers of such an authority, 
     shall be immune from civil liability, both personally and 
     professionally, for any act or omission within the scope of 
     their official duties unless the act or omission--
       (A) constitutes gross negligence;
       (B) constitutes an intentional tort; or
       (C) is criminal in nature.
       (2) Common law immunity preserved.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
     be construed to abrogate any immunity under common law of a 
     person described in such paragraph.

     SEC. 2162. CHARTER RENEWAL.

       (a) Term.--A charter granted to a public charter school 
     shall remain in force for a 5-year period, but may be renewed 
     for an unlimited number of 5-year periods.
       (b) Application for Charter Renewal.--In the case of a 
     public charter school that desires to renew its charter, the 
     Board of Trustees of the school shall file an application to 
     renew the charter with the eligible chartering authority that 
     granted the charter not later than 120 days before the 
     expiration of the charter. The application shall contain the 
     following:
       (1) A report on the progress of the public charter school 
     in achieving the goals, student academic achievement 
     expectations, and other terms of the approved charter.
       (2) All audited financial statements for the public charter 
     school for the preceding 4 years.
       (c) Approval of Charter Renewal Application.--The eligible 
     chartering authority that granted a charter shall approve an 
     application to renew the charter that is filed inaccordance 
     with subsection (b) unless the authority determines that--
       (1) the school committed a material violation of the 
     conditions, terms, standards, or procedures set forth in the 
     charter; or
       (2) the school failed to meet the goals and student 
     academic achievement expectations set forth in the charter.
       (d) Procedures for Consideration of Charter Renewal.--
       (1) Notice of right to hearing.--An eligible chartering 
     authority that has received an application to renew a charter 
     that is filed by a Board of Trustees in accordance with 
     subsection (b) shall provide to the Board written notice of 
     the right to an informal hearing on the application. The 
     eligible chartering authority shall provide the notice not 
     later than 15 days after the date on which the authority 
     received the application.
       (2) Request for hearing.--Not later than 15 days after the 
     date on which a Board of Trustees receives a notice under 
     paragraph (1), the Board may request, in writing, an informal 
     hearing on the application before the eligible chartering 
     authority.
       (3) Date and time of hearing.--
       (A) Notice.--Upon receiving a timely written request for a 
     hearing under paragraph (2), an eligible chartering authority 
     shall set a date and time for the hearing and shall provide 
     reasonable notice of the date and time, as well as the 
     procedures to be followed at the hearing, to the Board.
       (B) Deadline.--An informal hearing under this subsection 
     shall take place not later than 30 days after an eligible 
     chartering authority receives a timely written request for 
     the hearing under paragraph (2).
       (4) Final decision.--
       (A) Deadline.--An eligible chartering authority shall 
     render a final decision, in writing, on an application to 
     renew a charter--
       (i) not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     authority provided the written notice of the right to a 
     hearing, in the case of an application with respect to which 
     such a hearing is not held; and
       (ii) not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     hearing is concluded, in the case of an application with 
     respect to which a hearing is held.
       (B) Reasons for nonrenewal.--An eligible chartering 
     authority that denies an application to renew a charter shall 
     state in its decision, in reasonable detail, the grounds for 
     the denial.
       (5) Alternatives upon nonrenewal.--An eligible chartering 
     authority that denies an application to renew a charter 
     granted to a public charter school, or whose decision 
     approving such an application is reversed under section 
     2162(e), may--
       (A) manage the school directly until alternative 
     arrangements can be made for students at the school; or
       (B) place the school in a probationary status that requires 
     the school to take remedial actions, to be determined by the 
     authority, that directly relate to the grounds for the 
     denial.
       (6) Judicial review.--
       (A) Availability of review.--A decision by an eligible 
     chartering authority to deny an application to renew a 
     charter shall be subject to judicial review.
       (B) Standard of review.--A decision by an eligible 
     chartering authority to deny an application to renew a 
     charter shall be upheld unless the decision is arbitrary and 
     capricious or clearly erroneous.
       (e) Board of Education Renewal Review.--
       (1) Notice of decision to renew.--An eligible chartering 
     authority, other than the Board of Education, that renders a 
     decision to approve an application to renew a charter granted 
     to a public charter school--
       (A) shall provide a copy of the decision to the 
     Superintendent, the Board of Education, and the school not 
     later than 3 days after the decision is rendered; and
       (B) shall publish the decision in the District of Columbia 
     Register not later than 5 days after the decision is 
     rendered.
       (2) Recommendation of superintendent.--Not later than 30 
     days after an eligible chartering authority provides a copy 
     of a decision approving an application to renew a charter to 
     the Superintendent under paragraph (1), the Superintendent 
     may recommend to the Board of Education, in writing, that the 
     decision be reversed.
       (3) Standard of review by board of education.--The Board of 
     Education may concur in a recommendation of the 
     Superintendent under paragraph (2), and reverse a decision 
     approving an application to renew a charter granted to a 
     public charter school, if the Board of Education determines 
     that--

[[Page H 11711]]

       (A) the school failed to meet the goals and student 
     academic achievement expectations set forth in the charter, 
     in the case of a school that has a student body the majority 
     of which comprises students with special needs; or
       (B) the average test score for all students enrolled in the 
     school was less than the average test score for all students 
     enrolled in the District of Columbia public schools on the 
     most recently administered the district-wide assessments, in 
     the case of a school that has a student body the majority of 
     which does not comprise students with special needs.
       (4) Procedures for reversing decision.--
       (A) Notice of right to hearing.--In any case in which the 
     Board of Education is considering reversing a decision 
     approving an application to renew a charter granted to a 
     public charter school, the Board of Education shall provide 
     to the Board of Trustees of the school a written notice 
     stating in reasonable detail the grounds for the proposed 
     reversal. The notice shall inform the Board of Trustees of 
     the right to an informal hearing on the proposed reversal.
       (B) Request for hearing.--Not later than 15 days after the 
     date on which a Board of Trustees receives a notice under 
     subparagraph (A), the Board may request, in writing, an 
     informal hearing on the proposed reversal before the Board of 
     Education.
       (C) Date and time of hearing.--
       (i) Notice.--Upon receiving a timely written request for a 
     hearing under subparagraph (B), the Board of Education shall 
     set a date and time for the hearing and shall provide 
     reasonable notice of the date and time, as well as the 
     procedures to be followed at the hearing, to the Board of 
     Trustees.
       (ii) Deadline.--An informal hearing under this paragraph 
     shall take place not later than 30 days after the Board of 
     Education receives a timely written request for the hearing 
     under subparagraph (B).
       (D) Final decision.--
       (i) Deadline.--The Board of Education shall render a final 
     decision, in writing, on the proposed reversal--

       (I) not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     Board of Education provided the written notice of the right 
     to a hearing, in the case of a proposed reversal with respect 
     to which such a hearing is not held; and
       (II) not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     hearing is concluded, in the case of a proposed reversal with 
     respect to which a hearing is held.

       (ii) Reasons for reversal.--If the Board of Education 
     reverses a decision approving an application to renew a 
     charter, the Board of Education shall state in its decision, 
     in reasonable detail, the grounds for the reversal.
       (E) Judicial review.--
       (i) Availability of review.--A decision by the Board of 
     Education to reverse a decision approving an application to 
     renew a charter shall be subject to judicial review.
       (ii) Standard of review.--A decision by the Board of 
     Education to reverse a decision approving an application to 
     renew a charter shall be upheld unless the decision is 
     arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous.

     SEC. 2163. CHARTER REVOCATION.

       (a) Charter or Law Violations.--An eligible chartering 
     authority that has granted a charter to a public charter 
     school may revoke the charter if the authority determines 
     that the school has committed a violation of applicable laws 
     or a material violation of the conditions, terms, standards, 
     or procedures set forth in the charter.
       (b) Fiscal Mismanagement.--An eligible chartering authority 
     that has granted a charter to a public charter school shall 
     revoke the charter if the authority determines that the 
     school--
       (1) has engaged in a pattern of nonadherence to generally 
     accepted accounting principles;
       (2) has engaged in a pattern of fiscal mismanagement; or
       (3) is no longer economically viable.
       (c) Procedures for Consideration of Revocation.--
       (1) Notice of right to hearing.--An eligible chartering 
     authority that is proposing to revoke a charter granted to a 
     public charter school shall provide to the Board of Trustees 
     of the school a written notice stating in reasonable detail 
     the grounds for the proposed revocation. The notice shall 
     inform the Board of the right of the Board to an informal 
     hearing on the proposed revocation.
       (2) Request for hearing.--Not later than 15 days after the 
     date on which a Board of Trustees receives a notice under 
     paragraph (1), the Board may request, in writing, an informal 
     hearing on the proposed revocation before the eligible 
     chartering authority.
       (3) Date and time of hearing.--
       (A) Notice.--Upon receiving a timely written request for a 
     hearing under paragraph (2), an eligible chartering authority 
     shall set a date and time for the hearing and shall provide 
     reasonable notice of the date and time, as well as the 
     procedures to be followed at the hearing, to the Board.
       (B) Deadline.--An informal hearing under this subsection 
     shall take place not later than 30 days after an eligible 
     chartering authority receives a timely written request for 
     the hearing under paragraph (2).
       (4) Final decision.--
       (A) Deadline.--An eligible chartering authority shall 
     render a final decision, in writing, on the revocation of a 
     charter--
       (i) not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     authority provided the written notice of the right to a 
     hearing, in the case of a proposed revocation with respect to 
     which such a hearing is not held; and
       (ii) not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     hearing is concluded, in the case of a proposed revocation 
     with respect to which a hearing is held.
       (B) Reasons for revocation.--An eligible chartering 
     authority that revokes a charter shall state in its decision, 
     in reasonable detail, the grounds for the denial.
       (5) Alternatives upon revocation.--An eligible chartering 
     authority that revokes a charter granted to a public charter 
     school may manage the school directly until alternative 
     arrangements can be made for students at the school.
       (6) Judicial review.--
       (A) Availability of review.--A decision by an eligible 
     chartering authority to revoke a charter shall be subject to 
     judicial review.
       (B) Standard of review.--A decision by an eligible 
     chartering authority to revoke a charter shall be upheld 
     unless the decision is arbitrary and capricious or clearly 
     erroneous.

     SEC. 2164. DISCONTINUANCE OF ELIGIBLE CHARTERING AUTHORITY.

       (a) Notice.--In the case of an eligible chartering 
     authority that has granted a charter to a public charter 
     school and that becomes unable or unwilling to continue to 
     act in the capacity of an eligible chartering authority with 
     respect to the school, the authority shall provide written 
     notice of such discontinuance to the school, to the extent 
     feasible, not later than the date that is 120 days before the 
     date on which such discontinuance takes effect.
       (b) Petition by School.--A public charter school that has 
     been granted a charter by an eligible chartering authority 
     that becomes unable or unwilling to continue to act in the 
     capacity of an eligible chartering authority with respect to 
     the school shall file a petition with another eligible 
     chartering authority described in subsection (c)(2). The 
     petition shall request that such other authority assume the 
     powers and duties of an eligible chartering authority with 
     respect to the school and the charter granted to the school. 
     The petition shall be filed--
       (1) in the case of a public charter school that received a 
     timely notice under subsection (a), not later than 120 days 
     after such notice was received; and
       (2) in the case of a public charter school that did not 
     receive a timely notice under subsection (a), not later than 
     120 days after the date on which the eligible chartering 
     authority ceases to act in the capacity of an eligible 
     chartering authority with respect to the school.
       (c) Chartering Authorities Required to Assume Duties.--
       (1) In general.--If any of the eligible chartering 
     authorities described in paragraph (2) receives a petition 
     filed by a public charter school in accordance with 
     subsection (b), the eligible chartering authority shall grant 
     the petition and assume the powers and duties of an eligible 
     chartering authority with respect to the school and the 
     charter granted to the school.
       (2) Eligible chartering authorities.--The eligible 
     chartering authorities referred to in paragraph (1) are the 
     following:
       (A) The Board of Education.
       (B) Any other entity established, and designated as an 
     eligible chartering authority, by the District of Columbia 
     Council by enactment of a bill after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Interim Powers and Duties of School.--Except as 
     provided in this section, the powers and duties of a public 
     charter school that has been granted a charter by an eligible 
     chartering authority that becomes unable or unwilling to 
     continue to act in the capacity of an eligible chartering 
     authority with respect to the school shall not be affected by 
     such discontinuance, if the school satisfies the requirements 
     of this section.

     SEC. 2165. FEDERAL ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--The following Federal agencies and 
     federally-established institutions shall explore whether it 
     is feasible for the agency or institution to establish one or 
     more public charter schools:
       (1) The Library of Congress.
       (2) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       (3) The Drug Enforcement Agency.
       (4) The National Science Foundation.
       (5) The Department of Justice.
       (6) The Department of Defense.
       (7) The Smithsonian Institution, including the National 
     Zoological Park, the National Museum of American History, the 
     Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and the National 
     Gallery of Art.
       (b) Determination.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, each agency and institution 
     listed in subsection (a) shall make a determination regarding 
     whether it is feasible for the agency or institution to 
     establish one or more public charter schools.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, any agency or institution listed in 
     subsection (a) that has not filed a petition to establish a 
     public charter school with an eligible chartering authority 
     shall report to the Congress the reasons for the decision.
                         Subtitle C--Even Start

     SEC. 2201. AMENDMENTS FOR EVEN START PROGRAMS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1002 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

[[Page H 11712]]

       ``(b) Even Start.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of carrying out part B, 
     other than Even Start programs for the District of Columbia 
     as described in paragraph (2), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $118,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal 
     years.
       ``(2) District of columbia.--For the purpose of carrying 
     out Even Start programs in the District of Columbia as 
     described in section 1211, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated--
       ``(A) for fiscal year 1996, $2,000,000 for continued 
     funding made in fiscal year 1995, and for new grants, for an 
     aggregate of 8;
       ``(B) for fiscal year 1997, $3,500,000 for continued 
     funding made in fiscal year 1996 and for new grants, for an 
     aggregate of 14;
       ``(C) for fiscal year 1998, $5,000,000 for continued 
     funding made in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and for new 
     grants, for an aggregate of 20 grants in such fiscal year;
       ``(D) for fiscal year 1999, $5,000,000 for continued 
     funding made in fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 and for new 
     grants, for an aggregate of 20 grants in such fiscal year; 
     and
       ``(E) for fiscal year 2000, $5,000,000 for continued 
     funding made in fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 and 
     for new grants, for an aggregate of 20 grants in such fiscal 
     year or such number as the Secretary determines appropriate 
     pursuant to the evaluation described in section 
     1211(i)(2).''.
       (b) Even Start Family Literacy Programs.--Part B of title I 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 1202(a)(1), by inserting ``(1)'' after 
     ``1002(b)'';
       (2) in section 1202(b), by inserting ``(1)'' after 
     ``1002(b)'';
       (3) in section 1202(d)(1)--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``1002(b)''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or under section 1211,'' after 
     ``subsections (a), (b), and (c),'';
       (4) in section 1202(d)(3), by inserting ``(1)'' after 
     ``1002(b)'';
       (5) in section 1202(e)(4), by striking ``, the District of 
     Columbia,'';
       (6) in section 1204(a), by inserting ``intensive'' after 
     ``cost of providing'';
       (7) in section 1205(4), by inserting ``, intensive'' after 
     ``high-quality'';
       (8) in section 1206(b)(1), by striking ``described in 
     subsection (a)''; and
       (9) by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1211. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EVEN START INITIATIVES.

       ``(a) D.C. Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall provide 
     grants, on a competitive basis, to assist eligible entities 
     to carry out Even Start programs in the District of Columbia 
     that build on the findings of the `National Evaluation of the 
     Even Start Family Literacy Program', such as providing 
     intensive services in parent training and adult literacy or 
     adult education.
       ``(b) Definition of `Eligible''.--For the purpose of this 
     section, the term `eligible entity' means a partnership 
     composed of at least--
       ``(1) a public school in the District of Columbia;
       ``(2) the local educational agency in existence on 
     September 1, 1995 for the District of Columbia, any other 
     public organization, or an institution of higher education; 
     and
       ``(3) a private nonprofit community-based organization.
       ``(c) Uses of Funds; Cost-Sharing.--
       ``(1) Compliance.--Each eligible entity that receives funds 
     under this section shall comply with section 1204(a) and 
     1204(b)(3), relating to the use of such funds.
       ``(2) Cost-sharing.--Each program funded under this section 
     is subject to the cost-sharing requirement of section 
     1204(b)(1), except that the Secretary may waive that 
     requirement, in whole or in part, for any eligible entity 
     that demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that such 
     entity otherwise would not be able to participate in the 
     program under this section.
       ``(3) Minimum.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), each 
     eligible entity selected to receive a grant under this 
     section shall receive not more than $250,000 in any fiscal 
     year, except that the Secretary may increase such amount if 
     the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) such entity needs additional funds to be effective; 
     and
       ``(B) the increase will not reduce the amount of funds 
     available to other programs that receive funds under this 
     section.
       ``(4) Remaining funds.--If funds remain after payments are 
     made under paragraph (3) for any fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall make such remaining funds available to each selected 
     eligible entity in such fiscal year on a pro rata basis.
       ``(d) Program Elements.--Each program assisted under this 
     section shall comply with the program elements described in 
     section 1205, including intensive high quality instruction 
     programs of parent training and adult literacy or adult 
     education.
       ``(e) Eligible Participants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Individuals eligible to participate in a 
     program under this section are--
       ``(A) the parent or parents of a child described in 
     subparagraph (B), or any other adult who is substantially 
     involved in the day-to-day care of the child, who--
       ``(i) is eligible to participate in an adult education 
     program under the Adult Education Act; or
       ``(ii) is attending, or is eligible by age to attend, a 
     public school in the District of Columbia; and
       ``(B) any child, from birth through age 7, of an individual 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Eligibility requirements.--The eligibility factors 
     described in section 1206(b) shall apply to programs under 
     this section.
       ``(f) Applications.--Each eligible entity that wishes to 
     receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(g) Selection of Grantees.--In awarding grants under this 
     section, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) use the selection criteria described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (F) and (H) of section 1208(a)(1); and
       ``(2) give priority to applications for programs that--
       ``(A) target services to schools in which a schoolwide 
     program is being conducted under section 1114 of this 
     subtitle; or
       ``(B) are located in areas designated as empowerment zones 
     or enterprise communities.
       ``(h) Duration of Programs.--The priority for subgrants 
     described in section 1208(b) shall apply to grants made under 
     this section, except that--
       ``(1) references in that section to the State educational 
     agency and to subgrants shall be read to refer to the 
     Secretary and to grants under this section, respectively; and
       ``(2) notwithstanding paragraph (4) of such section, the 
     Secretary shall not provide continuation funding to a 
     recipient under this section if the Secretary determines, 
     after affording the recipient notice and an opportunity for a 
     hearing, that the recipient has not made substantial progress 
     toward achieving its stated objectives and the purpose of 
     this section.
       ``(i) Technical Assistance and Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Technical assistance.--(A) The Secretary shall use 
     not more than 5 percent of the amounts authorized under 
     section 1002(b)(2) for any fiscal year to provide technical 
     assistance to eligible entities, including providing funds to 
     one or more local nonprofit organizations to provide 
     technical assistance to eligible entities in the areas of 
     community development and coalition building, and for the 
     evaluation conducted pursuant to paragraph (2).
       ``(B) The Secretary shall allocate 5 percent of the amounts 
     authorized under section 1002(b)(2) in any fiscal year to 
     contract with the National Center for Family Literacy to 
     provide technical assistance to eligible entities.
       ``(2) Evaluation.--(A) The Secretary shall use funds 
     available under paragraph (1)(A) to provide an independent 
     evaluation of programs under this section to determine their 
     effectiveness in providing high quality family literacy 
     services including--
       ``(i) intensive and high quality services in adult literacy 
     or adult education;
       ``(ii) intensive and high quality services in parent 
     training;
       ``(iii) coordination with related programs;
       ``(iv) training of related personnel in appropriate skill 
     areas; and

     to determine if the grant amount provided to grantees to 
     carry out such projects is appropriate to accomplish the 
     goals of this section.
       ``(B)(i) Such evaluation shall be conducted by individuals 
     not directly involved in the administration of a program 
     operated with funds provided under this section. Such 
     independent evaluators and the program administrators shall 
     jointly develop evaluation criteria which provide for 
     appropriate analysis of the factors listed in subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(ii) In order to determine a program's effectiveness in 
     achieving its stated goals, each evaluation shall contain 
     objective measures of such goals and, whenever feasible, 
     shall obtain the specific views of program participants about 
     such programs.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate, the Committee on Economic and Education 
     Opportunities of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
     on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources 
     of the Senate, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate a report regarding the results of such evaluations 
     not later than March 1, 1999. The Secretary shall provide an 
     interim report by March 1, 1998.''.
 Subtitle D--World Class Schools Panel; Core Curriculum; Assessments; 
                          and Promotion Gates

                   PART 1--WORLD CLASS SCHOOLS PANEL

     SEC. 2251. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is established a panel to be known as the ``World 
     Class Schools Panel''.

     SEC. 2252. DUTIES OF PANEL.

       (a) In General.--Not later than July 1, 1996, the Panel 
     shall recommend to the Superintendent and the Board of 
     Education the following:
       (1) A core curriculum for kindergarten through the 12th 
     grade developed or selected by the Panel.
       (2) District-wide assessments for measuring student 
     achievement in the curriculum developed or selected under 
     paragraph (1). Such assessments shall be developed at several 
     grade levels, including, at a minimum, the grade levels with 
     respect to which the Superintendent establishes promotion 
     gates, as required under section 2263. To the extent 
     feasible, such assessments shall, at a minimum, be designed 
     to provide information 

[[Page H 11713]]

     that permits the following comparisons to be made:
       (A) Comparisons among individual schools and individual 
     students in the District of Columbia.
       (B) Comparisons between individual schools and individual 
     students in the District of Columbia and schools and students 
     in other States and the Nation as a whole.
       (C) Comparisons between individual schools and individual 
     students in the District of Columbia and schools and students 
     in other nations whose students historically have scored high 
     on international studies of student achievement.
       (3) Model professional development programs for teachers 
     using the curriculum developed or selected under paragraph 
     (1).
       (b) Content.--The curriculum and assessments recommended 
     under subsection (a) shall be either newly developed or 
     existing materials that are judged by the Panel to be--
       (1) ``world class'', including having a level of quality 
     and rigor that is equal to, or greater than, the level of 
     quality and rigor of analogous curricula and assessments of 
     other nations (including nations whose students historically 
     score high on international studies of student achievement); 
     and
       (2) appropriate for the District of Columbia public 
     schools.
       (c) Submission to Secretary.--If the curriculum, 
     assessments, and model professional development programs 
     recommended by the Panel are approved by the Board of 
     Education, the Superintendent may submit them to the 
     Secretary of Education as evidence of compliance with 
     sections 1111, 1112, and 1119 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.

     SEC. 2253. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Number and Appointment.--The Panel shall be comprised 
     of the Superintendent and 6 other members appointed as 
     follows:
       (1) 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) 2 members appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (3) 1 member appointed by the President.
       (4) 1 member appointed by the Mayor who--
       (A) is a parent of a minor student enrolled in a District 
     of Columbia public school; and
       (B) is active in a parent organization.
       (b) Expertise.--The members of the Panel appointed under 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) shall be 
     appointed from among individuals who are nationally 
     recognized experts on education reform in the United States 
     or who are nationally recognized experts on education in 
     other nations, including the areas of curriculum, assessment, 
     and teacher training.
       (c) Terms.--The term of service of each member of the Panel 
     shall begin on the date of appointment of the member and 
     shall end on the date of the termination of the Panel, unless 
     the member resigns from the Panel or becomes incapable of 
     continuing to serve on the Panel.
       (d) Chairperson.--The members of the Panel shall select a 
     chairperson from among them.
       (e) Date of Appointment.--The members of the Panel shall be 
     appointed not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (f) Commencement of Duties.--The Panel may begin to carry 
     out its duties under this part when 5 members of the Panel 
     have been appointed.
       (g) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Panel shall not affect the 
     powers of the Panel, but shall be filled in the same manner 
     as the original appointment.

     SEC. 2254. CONSULTATION.

       The Panel shall conduct its work in consultation with--
       (1) officials of the District of Columbia public schools 
     who have been identified by the Superintendent as having 
     relevant responsibilities;
       (2) the consortium established under section 2604(e); and
       (3) any other persons or groups the Panel deems 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 2255. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Meetings.--The Panel shall meet on a regular basis, as 
     necessary, at the call of the chairperson or a majority of 
     its members.
       (b) Quorum.--A majority of the members shall constitute a 
     quorum for the transaction of business.
       (c) Voting and Final Decision.--
       (1) Prohibition on proxy voting.--No individual may vote, 
     or exercise any other power of a member, by proxy.
       (2) Final decisions.--In making final decisions of the 
     Panel with respect to the exercise of its duties and powers, 
     the Panel shall operate on the principle of majority vote.
       (d) Public Access.--The Panel shall ensure public access to 
     its proceedings (other than proceedings, or portions of 
     proceedings, relating to internal personnel and management 
     matters) and make available to the public, at reasonable 
     cost, transcripts of such proceedings.
       (e) No Pay for Performance of Duties.--Members of the 
     Commission may not be paid for the performance of duties 
     vested in the Commission.
       (f) Travel Expenses.--Each member shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with section 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 2256. GIFTS.

       The Panel may, during the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, accept donations of money, property, and personal 
     services, except that no donations may be accepted for travel 
     or reimbursement of travel expenses, or for the salaries of 
     employees of the Panel.

     SEC. 2257. DIRECTOR AND STAFF; EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.

       (a) Director.--The Chairperson of the Panel, without regard 
     to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     the appointment and compensation of officers or employees of 
     the United States, shall appoint a Director to be paid at a 
     rate not to exceed the rate of basic pay for level V of the 
     Executive Schedule.
       (b) Appointment and Pay of Employees.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Director may appoint not more than 6 
     additional employees to serve as staff to the Panel without 
     regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service.
       (2) Pay.--The employees appointed under paragraph (1) may 
     be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     but shall not be paid a rate that exceeds the maximum rate of 
     basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
       (c) Experts and Consultants.--The Panel may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services of experts and 
     consultants under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (d) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon the request of the 
     Panel, the head of any department or agency of the United 
     States may detail any of the personnel of such agency to the 
     Panel to assist the Panel in its duties under this part.

     SEC. 2258. TERMINATION OF PANEL.

       The Panel shall terminate upon the completion of its work, 
     but not later than August 1, 1996.

     SEC. 2259. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such sum shall remain 
     available until expended.

 PART 2--DUTIES OF BOARD OF EDUCATION WITH RESPECT TO CORE CURRICULUM, 
                    ASSESSMENTS, AND PROMOTION GATES

     SEC. 2261. DEVELOPMENT OF CORE CURRICULUM AND DISTRICT-WIDE 
                   ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) In General.--If the Board of Education does not approve 
     both the core curriculum and the district-wide assessments 
     recommended by the Panel under section 2252, the 
     Superintendent shall develop or select, with the approval of 
     the Board of Education, an alternative curriculum and 
     alternative district-wide assessments that satisfy the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), and 
     subsection (b), of such section, except that the reference to 
     the Panel in section 2252(b) shall be considered a reference 
     to the Superintendent.
       (b) Deadline.--If the Board of Education does not approve 
     both the core curriculum and the district-wide assessments 
     recommended by the Panel under section 2252, the 
     Superintendent shall meet the requirements of subsection (a) 
     not later than August 1, 1996.

     SEC. 2262. ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) Administration of Assessments.--The Superintendent 
     shall administer the assessments developed or selected under 
     section 2252 or 2261 to students enrolled in the District of 
     Columbia public schools and public charter schools on an 
     annual basis.
       (b) Dissemination of Information.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the 
     information derived from the assessments administered under 
     subsection (a) shall be made available, on an annual basis, 
     to the appropriate congressional committees, the District of 
     Columbia Council, the Mayor, parents, and other members of 
     the public.
       (2) Limitation.--To release any such information, the 
     Superintendent shall comply with the requirements of section 
     444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C 1232g).

     SEC. 2263. PROMOTION GATES.

       (a) Kindergarten through 4th Grade.--Not later than August 
     1, 1996, the Superintendent shall establish and implement 
     promotion gates with respect to not less than one grade level 
     from kindergarten through and including the 4th grade.
       (b) 5th through 8th Grades.--Not later than August 1, 1997, 
     the Superintendent shall establish and implement promotion 
     gates with respect to not less than one grade level from the 
     5th grade through and including the 8th grade.
       (c) 9th through 12th Grades.--Not later than August 1, 
     1998, the Superintendent shall establish and implement 
     promotion gates with respect to not less than one grade level 
     from the 9th grade through and including the 12th grade.
       (d) Interim Deadline.--Not later than February 1, 1996, the 
     Superintendent shall designate the grade levels with respect 
     to which promotion gates will be established and implemented.
 Subtitle E--Per Capita District of Columbia Public School and Public 
                         Charter School Funding

     SEC. 2301. ANNUAL BUDGETS FOR SCHOOLS.

       (a) In General.--For fiscal year 1997 and for each 
     subsequent fiscal year, the Mayor 

[[Page H 11714]]

     shall make annual payments from the general fund of the 
     District of Columbia in accordance with the formula 
     established under subsection (b).
       (b) Formula.--
       (1) In general.--The Mayor and the District of Columbia 
     Council, in consultation with the Board of Education and the 
     Superintendent, shall establish a formula which determines 
     the amount--
       (A) of the annual payment to the Board of Education for the 
     operating expenses of the District of Columbia public 
     schools, which for purposes of this paragraph includes the 
     operating expenses of the Board of Education and the Office 
     of the Superintendent; and
       (B) of the annual payment to each public charter school for 
     the operating expenses of each such public charter school 
     established in accordance with subtitle B.
       (2) Formula calculation.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (3), the amount of the annual payment under paragraph (1) 
     shall be calculated by multiplying a uniform dollar amount 
     used in the formula established under such paragraph by--
       (A) the number of students calculated under section 2302 
     that are enrolled at District of Columbia public schools, in 
     the case of the payment under paragraph (1)(A); or
       (B) the number of students calculated under section 2302 
     that are enrolled at each public charter school, in the case 
     of a payment under paragraph (1)(B).
       (3) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the Mayor 
     and the District of Columbia Council, in consultation with 
     the Board of Education and the Superintendent, may adjust the 
     formula--
       (A) to increase or decrease the amount of the annual 
     payment to the District of Columbia public schools or each 
     public charter school based on a calculation of--
       (i) the number of students served by such schools in 
     certain grade levels; and
       (ii) the cost of educating students at such certain grade 
     levels; and
       (B) to increase the amount of the annual payment if the 
     District of Columbia public schools or each public charter 
     school serve a high number of students with special needs (as 
     such term is defined under paragraph (4)).
       (4) Definition.--The Mayor and the District of Columbia 
     Council shall develop a definition of the term ``students 
     with special needs'' for purposes of carrying out this title.

     SEC. 2302. CALCULATION OF NUMBER OF STUDENTS.

       (a) School Reporting Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than September 15 of each year, 
     beginning in fiscal year 1997, each District of Columbia 
     public school and public charter school shall submit a report 
     to the Mayor, District of Columbia Council, Board of 
     Education, the Authority, and the eligible chartering 
     authority that approved its charter, containing the 
     information described in subsection (b).
       (2) Special rule.--Not later than April 1 of each year, 
     beginning in 1997, each public charter school shall submit a 
     report in the same form and manner as described in paragraph 
     (1) to ensure accurate payment under section 
     2303(a)(2)(B)(ii).
       (b) Calculation of Number of Students.--Not later than 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and not 
     later than October 15 of each year thereafter, the Board of 
     Education shall calculate the following:
       (1) The number of students, including nonresident students, 
     enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12 of the District of 
     Columbia public schools and in public charter schools 
     established in accordance with this title and the number of 
     students whose tuition for enrollment in other schools is 
     paid for by funds available to the District of Columbia 
     public schools.
       (2) The amount of fees and tuition assessed and collected 
     from the nonresident students described in paragraph (1).
       (3) The number of students, including nonresident students, 
     enrolled in pre-school and pre-kindergarten in the District 
     of Columbia public schools and in public charter schools 
     established in accordance with this title.
       (4) The amount of fees and tuition assessed and collected 
     from the nonresident students described in paragraph (3).
       (5) The number of full time equivalent adult students 
     enrolled in adult, community, continuing, and vocational 
     education programs in the District of Columbia public schools 
     and in public charter schools established in accordance with 
     this title.
       (6) The amount of fees and tuition assessed and collected 
     from resident and nonresident adult students described in 
     paragraph (5).
       (7) The number of students, including nonresident students, 
     enrolled in non-grade level programs in District of Columbia 
     public schools and in public charter schools established in 
     accordance with this title.
       (8) The amount of fees and tuition assessed and collected 
     from nonresident students described in paragraph (7).
       (c) Annual Reports.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and not later than October 15 
     of each year thereafter, the Board of Education shall prepare 
     and submit to the Authority, the Mayor, the District of 
     Columbia Council, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States, and the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     containing a summary of the most recent calculations made 
     under subsection (b).
       (d) Audit of Initial Calculations.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct an audit of the initial calculations 
     described in subsection (b).
       (2) Conduct of audit.--In conducting the audit, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States--
       (A) shall provide an opinion as to the accuracy of the 
     information contained in the report described in subsection 
     (b); and
       (B) shall identify any material weaknesses in the systems, 
     procedures, or methodology used by the Board of Education--
       (i) in determining the number of students, including 
     nonresident students, enrolled in the District of Columbia 
     public schools and in public charter schools established in 
     accordance with this title and the number of students whose 
     tuition for enrollment in other school systems is paid for by 
     fundsavailable to the District of Columbia public schools; 
     and
       (ii) in assessing and collecting fees and tuition from 
     nonresident students.
       (3) Submission of audit.--Not later than 45 days after the 
     date on which the Comptroller General of the United States 
     receives the initial annual report from the Board of 
     Education under subsection (c), the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the Authority, the Mayor, the District of Columbia 
     Council, and the appropriate congressional committees the 
     audit conducted under this subsection.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Comptroller General of the United 
     States $75,000 for fiscal year 1996 for the purpose of 
     carrying out this subsection.

     SEC. 2303. PAYMENTS TO PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Escrow for public charter schools.--Except as provided 
     in subsection (b), for any fiscal year, not later than 10 
     days after the date of enactment of the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act for such fiscal year, the Mayor shall 
     place in escrow an amount equal to the aggregate of the 
     amounts determined under section 2301(b)(1)(B) for use only 
     by District of Columbia public charter schools.
       (2) Transfer of escrow funds.--
       (A) 1997 initial payment.--Beginning in 1997, not later 
     than October 15 of each year, the Mayor shall transfer, by 
     electronic funds transfer, an amount equal to 75 percent of 
     the amount of the annual payment for a public charter school 
     determined by using the formula established pursuant to 
     section 2301(b) to a bank designated by each public charter 
     school.
       (B) 1997 final payment.--
       (i) Except as provided in clause (ii), not later than May 1 
     of each year beginning in 1997, the Mayor shall transfer the 
     remainder of the annual payment for a public charter school 
     in the same manner as the initial payment was made under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (ii) Beginning in 1997, not later than March 15, if the 
     enrollment number of a public charter school has changed from 
     the number reported to the Mayor, District of Columbia 
     Council, Board of Education, the Authority, and the eligible 
     chartering authority that approved its charter as required 
     under section 2302(a)(2), the Mayor shall increase the 
     payment in an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount 
     provided for each student who has enrolled without another 
     student withdrawing or dropping out, or shall reduce the 
     payment in an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount 
     provided for each student who has withdrawn or dropped out of 
     school without another student replacement.
       (C) Pro rata reduction or increase in payments.--
       (i) If the funds made available to the District of Columbia 
     public schools for any fiscal year are insufficient to pay 
     the full amount that each school is eligible to receive under 
     this subtitle for such year, the Mayor shall ratably reduce 
     such amounts for such year.
       (ii) If additional funds become available for making 
     payments under this subtitle for such fiscal year, amounts 
     that were reduced under subparagraph (A) shall be increased 
     on the same basis as such amounts were reduced.
       (D) Unexpended funds.--Any funds that remain in the escrow 
     account for public charter schools on September 30 of a 
     fiscal year shall revert to the general fund of the District 
     of Columbia.
       (b) Exception for New Schools.--
       (1) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $200,000 for any fiscal year for the purpose of carrying out 
     this subsection.
       (2) Disbursement to mayor.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall make available and disburse to the Mayor, not later 
     than August 1 of each of the years 1996 through 2000, such 
     funds as have been appropriated under paragraph (1).
       (3) Escrow.--The Mayor shall place in escrow, for use by 
     public charter schools, any sum disbursed under paragraph (2) 
     that has not yet been paid under paragraph (4).
       (4) Payments to schools.--The Mayor shall pay to public 
     charter schools described in paragraph (5), in accordance 
     with this subsection, any sum disbursed under paragraph (2).
       (5) Schools described.--The schools referred to in 
     paragraph (4) are public charter schools that--
       (A) did not operate as public charter schools during any 
     portion of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for 
     which funds are authorized to be appropriated under paragraph 
     (1); and

[[Page H 11715]]

       (B) operated as public charter schools during the fiscal 
     year for which funds are authorized to be appropriated under 
     paragraph (1).
       (6) Formula.--
       (A) 1996.--The amount of the payment to a public charter 
     school described in paragraph (5) that begins operation in 
     fiscal year 1996 shall be calculated by multiplying $6,300 by 
     \1/12\ of the total anticipated enrollment as set forth in 
     the petition to establish the public charter school; and
       (B) 1997 through 2000.--The amount of the payment to a 
     public charter school described in paragraph (5) that begins 
     operation in any of fiscal years 1997 through 2000 shall be 
     calculated by multiplying the uniform dollar amount used in 
     the formula established under 2301(b) by \1/12\ of the total 
     anticipated enrollment as set forth in the petition to 
     establish the public charter school.
       (7) Payment to schools.--
       (A) Transfer.--On September 1 of each of the years 1996 
     through 2000, the Mayor shall transfer, by electronic funds 
     transfer, the amount determined under paragraph (6) for each 
     public charter school from the escrow account established 
     under subsection (a) to a bank designated by each such 
     school.
       (B) Pro rata and remaining funds.--Subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D) of subsection (a)(2) shall apply to payments made under 
     this subsection.
          Subtitle F--School Facilities Repair and Improvement

                       PART 1--SCHOOL FACILITIES

     SEC. 2351. AGREEMENT FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 1995, the 
     Administrator of the General Services Administration and the 
     Superintendent shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement or 
     Understanding (referred to in this subtitle as the 
     ``Agreement'') authorizing, to the extent provided in this 
     subtitle, the Administrator to provide technical assistance 
     to the District of Columbia public schools regarding school 
     facilities repair and improvements, including contracting for 
     and supervising the repair and improvements of such 
     facilities and the coordination of such efforts.
       (b) Agreement Provisions.--The Agreement shall include the 
     following:
       (1) General authority.--Provisions that give the 
     Administrator authority--
       (A) to supervise and direct District of Columbia public 
     school personnel responsible for public school facilities 
     repair and improvements;
       (B) to develop, coordinate and implement a systemic and 
     comprehensive facilities revitalization program, taking into 
     account the ``Preliminary Facilities Master Plan 2005'' 
     (prepared by the Superintendent's Task Force on Education 
     Infrastructure for the 21st Century) to repair and improve 
     District of Columbia public school facilities, including a 
     list of facilities and renovation schedule that prioritizes 
     facilities to be repaired and improved;
       (C) to accept private goods and services for use by 
     District of Columbia public schools, in consultation with the 
     nonprofit corporation referred to in section 2603;
       (D) to recommend specific repair and improvement projects 
     in District of Columbia public school facilities by members 
     and units of the National Guard and military reserve, 
     consistent with section 2351(b)(1)(B); and
       (E) to access all District of Columbia public school 
     facilities and any records or documents regarding such 
     facilities.
       (2) Cooperation.--Assurances by the Administrator and the 
     Superintendent to cooperate with each other, and with the 
     nonprofit corporation referred to in section 2603, in any way 
     necessary, to ensure implementation of the Agreement.
       (c) Duration of Agreement.--The Agreement shall remain in 
     effect until the agency designated pursuant to section 
     2352(a)(2) assumes responsibility for the District of 
     Columbia public school facilities but shall terminate not 
     later than 24 months after the date that the Agreement is 
     signed, whichever is earlier.

     SEC. 2352. FACILITIES REVITALIZATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Program.--Not later than 24 months after the date that 
     the Agreement is signed, the Mayor and the District of 
     Columbia Council shall--
       (1) in consultation with the Administrator, the Authority, 
     the Board of Education, and the Superintendent, design and 
     implement a facilities repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     management program; and
       (2) designate a new or existing agency or authority to 
     administer such program to repair, improve, and maintain the 
     physical condition and safety of District of Columbia public 
     school facilities.
       (b) Proceeds.--Such management program shall include 
     provisions that--
       (1) identify short-term funding for capital and maintenance 
     of such facilities, which may include retaining proceeds from 
     the sale or lease of a District of Columbia public school 
     facility; and
       (2) identify and designate long-term funding for capital 
     and maintenance of such facilities.
       (c) Implementation.--Upon implementation of such program, 
     the agency or authority created or designated pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(2) shall assume authority and responsibility 
     for repair, maintenance, improvement, and management of 
     District of Columbia public schools.

     SEC. 2353. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle, the following terms have the 
     following meanings:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the General Services Administration.
       (2) Facilities.--The term ``facilities'' means buildings, 
     structures, and real property.

     SEC. 2354. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal 
     years 1996 and 1997, $2,000,000 to the District of Columbia 
     public schools for use by the Administrator to carry out this 
     subtitle.

                            PART 2--WAIVERS

     SEC. 2361. WAIVERS.

       (a) In General.--All District of Columbia fees, all 
     requirements found in the document ``The District of Columbia 
     Public Schools Standard Contract Provisions'' published by 
     the District of Columbia public schools for use with 
     construction maintenance projects, shall be waived, for 
     purposes of repair and improvement of the District of 
     Columbia public schools for a period of 24 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Limitation.--
       (1) Waiver application.--A waiver under subsection (a) 
     shall apply only to contractors, subcontractors, and any 
     other groups, entities, or individuals who donate materials 
     and services to the District of Columbia public schools.
       (2) Insurance requirements.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to waive the requirements for a contractor to 
     maintain adequate insurance coverage.

     SEC. 2362. APPLICATION FOR PERMITS.

       An application for a permit during the 24-month period 
     described in section 2311(a), required by the District of 
     Columbia government for the repair or improvement of a 
     District of Columbia public school shall be acted upon not 
     later than 20 days after receipt of the application by the 
     respective District of Columbia permitting authorities.
           Subtitle G--Department of Education ``D.C. Desk''

     SEC. 2401. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There shall be established within the Office of the 
     Secretary of the Department of Education a District of 
     Columbia Technical Assistance Office (in this subtitle 
     referred to as the ``D.C. Desk'').

     SEC. 2402. DIRECTOR FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COORDINATED 
                   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       The D.C. Desk shall be administered by a Director for 
     District of Columbia Coordinated Technical Assistance. The 
     Director shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall not be 
     paid at a rate that exceeds the maximum rate of basic pay 
     payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule.

     SEC. 2403. DUTIES.

       The Director of the D.C. Desk shall--
       (1) coordinate with the Superintendent a comprehensive 
     technical assistance strategy by the Department of Education 
     that supports the District of Columbia public schools first 
     year reforms and long-term plan described in section 2101;
       (2) identify all Federal grants for which the District of 
     Columbia public schools are eligible to apply to support 
     implementation of its long term plan;
       (3) identify private and public resources available to the 
     District of Columbia public schools that are consistent with 
     the long-term plan described in section 2101; and
       (4) provide additional technical assistance as assigned by 
     the Secretary which supports reform in the District of 
     Columbia public schools.
                     Subtitle H--Residential School

     SEC. 2451. PLAN.

       (a) In General.--The Superintendent may develop a plan to 
     establish a residential school for the 1997-1998 school year.
       (b) Requirements.--If developed, the plan for the 
     residential school shall include, at a minimum--
       (1) options for the location of the school, including 
     renovation or building of a new facility;
       (2) financial plans for the facility, including annual 
     costs to operate the school, capital expenditures required to 
     open the facility, maintenance of facilities, and staffing 
     costs; and
       (3) staff development and training plans.

     SEC. 2452. USE OF FUNDS.

       Funds under this subtitle shall be used for--
       (1) planning requirements as described in section 2451; and
       (2) capital costs associated with the start-up of a 
     residential school, including the purchase of real and 
     personal property and the renovation of existing facilities.

     SEC. 2453. FUTURE FUNDING.

       The Superintendent shall identify, not later than December 
     31, 1996, in a report to the Mayor, City Council, the 
     Authority, the Appropriations Committees of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, the House Governmental Reform 
     Committee, the House Economic and Educational Opportunities 
     Committee, and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee 
     and the Governmental Affairs Committee, non-Federal funding 
     sources for operation of the residential school.

     SEC. 2454. GIFTS.

       The Superintendent may accept donations of money, property, 
     and personal services for purposes of the establishment and 
     operation of a residential school.
     
[[Page H 11716]]


     SEC. 2455. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the District 
     $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 to carry out this subtitle 
     for initial start-up expenses of a residential school in the 
     District of Columbia, of which not more than $100,000 may be 
     used to carry out section 2451.
            Subtitle I--Progress Reports and Accountability

     SEC. 2501. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL REPORT.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Chairman of the District of Columbia Council 
     shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report describing legislative and other actions the District 
     of Columbia Council has taken or will take to facilitate the 
     implementation of the reforms described in section 2502.

     SEC. 2502. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT ON REFORMS.

       Not later than August 1, 1996, the Superintendent shall 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees, the Board 
     of Education, the Mayor, and the District of Columbia Council 
     a progress report that includes the following:
       (1) The status of the approval by the Board of Education of 
     the core curriculum--
       (A) recommended by the Panel under section 2252(a)(1); or
       (B) selected or developed by the Superintendent under 
     section 2261.
       (2) The status of the approval by the Board of Education of 
     the district-wide assessments for measuring student 
     achievement--
       (A) recommended by the Panel under section 2252(a)(2); or
       (B) selected or developed by the Superintendent under 
     section 2261.
       (3) The status of the establishment and implementation of 
     promotion gates under section 2263.
       (4) Identification of strategies to assist students who do 
     not meet promotion gate criteria.
       (5) The status of the implementation of a policy that 
     provides rewards and sanctions for individual schools based 
     on student performance on district-wide assessments.
       (6) A description of the activities carried out under the 
     program established under section 2604(e).
       (7) The status of implementation by the Board of Education, 
     after consultation with the Superintendent and unions 
     (including unions that represent teachers and unions that 
     represent principals) of a policy for performance-based 
     evaluation of principals and teachers.
       (8) A description of how the private sector partnership 
     described in subtitle K is working collaboratively with the 
     Board of Education and the Superintendent.
       (9) The status of implementation of policies developed by 
     the Superintendent and the Board of Education that establish 
     incentive pay awards for staff of District of Columbia public 
     schools who meet annual performance goals based on district-
     wide assessments at individual schools.
       (10) A description of how staffing decisions have been 
     revised to delegate staffing to individual schools and 
     transfer additional decisionmaking with respect to budgeting 
     to the individual school level.
       (11) A description of, and the status of implementation of, 
     policies adopted by the Board of Education that require 
     competitive appointments for all positions.
       (12) The status of implementation of policies regarding 
     alternative teacher certification requirements.
       (13) The status of implementation of testing requirements 
     for teacher licensing renewal.
       (14) The status of efforts to increase the involvement of 
     families in the education of students, including--
       (A) the development of family resource centers;
       (B) the expansion of Even Start programs described in part 
     B of chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965; and
       (C) the development and implementation of policies to 
     increase parental involvement in education.
       (15) A description of, and the status of implementation of, 
     a policy to allow District of Columbia public schools to be 
     used after school hours as community centers, including the 
     establishment of at least one prototype pilot project in one 
     school.
       (16) A description of, and the status of implementation of, 
     a policy to increase the participation of tutors and mentors 
     for students, beginning not later than the 8th grade.
       (17) A description of the status of implementation of the 
     agreement with the Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration under part 1 of subtitle E.
       (18) A description of the status of the District of 
     Columbia public school central office budget and staffing 
     reductions from the level at the end of fiscal year 1995 and 
     a review of the market-based provision of services provided 
     by the central office to schools.
       (19) The development by the Superintendent of a system of 
     parental choice among District of Columbia public schools 
     where per pupil funding follows the student (``Public School 
     Vouchers'') and adoption by the Board of Education.
       (20) The status of the processing of public charter school 
     petitions submitted to the Board of Education in accordance 
     with subtitle B.
       (21) The status of the revision and implementation by the 
     Board of Education of the discipline policy for the District 
     of Columbia public schools in order to ensure a safe, 
     disciplined environment conducive to learning.
                  Subtitle J--Low-Income Scholarships

     SEC. 2551. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOLARSHIP CORPORATION.

       (a) General Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be established a 
     private, nonprofit corporation, to be known as the ``District 
     of Columbia Scholarship Corporation'' (referred to in this 
     subtitle as the ``Corporation''), which is not an agency or 
     establishment of the United States Government.
       (2) Duties.--The Corporation shall have the responsibility 
     and authority to administer, publicize, and evaluate the 
     District of Columbia Scholarship Program, and to determine 
     student and school eligibility.
       (3) Consultation.--The Corporation shall exercise its 
     authority in a manner consistent with maximizing educational 
     choices and opportunities for the maximum number of 
     interested families, and in consultation with other school 
     scholarship programs in the District of Columbia.
       (4) Application of provisions.--The Corporation shall be 
     subject to the provisions of this Act, and, to the extent 
     consistent with this section, to the District of Columbia 
     Nonprofit Corporation Act (D.C. Code, 29-501 et seq.).
       (5) Residence.--The Corporation shall have its place of 
     business in the District of Columbia and shall be considered, 
     for purposes of venue in civil actions, to be a resident 
     thereof.
       (b) Organization and Management, Board of Directors.--
       (1) Membership.--
       (A) In general.--The Corporation shall have a Board of 
     Directors (referred to in this subtitle as the ``Board''), 
     comprised of 7 members with 6 members of the Board appointed 
     by the President not later than 30 days after receipt of 
     nominations from the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and the majority leader of the Senate.
       (B) House nominations.--The President shall appoint 3 of 
     the members from a list of 9 individuals nominated by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with 
     the minority leader of the House of Representatives.
       (C) Senate nominations.--The President shall appoint 3 
     members from a list of 9 individuals nominated by the 
     majority leader of the Senate in consultation with the 
     minority leader of the Senate.
       (D) Deadline.--The Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and majority leader of the Senate shall submit their 
     nominations to the President not later than 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (E) Appointee of mayor.--The Mayor shall appoint 1 member 
     not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (F) Possible interim members.--If the President does not 
     appoint the 6 members of the Board in the 30-day period 
     described in subparagraph (A), the nominees of the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives and of the Senate, together with 
     the appointee of the Mayor, shall serve as an interim Board 
     of Directors with all the powers and other duties of the 
     Board described in this subtitle, until the President makes 
     the appointments as described in this subsection.
       (2) Powers.--All powers of the Corporation shall vest in 
     and be exercised under the authority of its Board of 
     Directors.
       (3) Elections.--Members of the Board annually shall elect 1 
     of the members to be chairperson.
       (4) Residency.--All members appointed to the Board must be 
     residents of the District of Columbia at the time of 
     appointment and while serving on the Board.
       (5) Nonemployee.--No member of the Board may be an employee 
     of the United States Government or the District of Columbia 
     government when appointed or during tenure on the Board, 
     unless the individual is on a leave of absence from such a 
     position while serving on the Board.
       (6) Incorporation.--The members of the initial Board of 
     Directors shall serve as incorporators and shall take 
     whatever steps are necessary to establish the Corporation 
     under the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act 
     (D.C. Code 29-501 et seq.).
       (7) General term.--The term of office of each member shall 
     be 5 years, except that any member appointed to fill a 
     vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for 
     which the predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for 
     the remainder of such term.
       (8) Consecutive term.--No member of the Board shall be 
     eligible to serve in excess of 2 consecutive terms of 5 years 
     each. A partial term shall be considered as 1 full term. Any 
     vacancy on the Board shall not affect its power, but shall be 
     filled in a manner consistent with this subtitle.
       (9) No benefit.--No part of the income or assets of the 
     Corporation shall inure to the benefit of any Director, 
     officer, or employee except as salary or reasonable 
     compensation for services.
       (10) Political activity.--The Corporation may not 
     contribute to or otherwise support any political party or 
     candidate for elective public office.
       (11) No officers.--The members of the Board shall not, by 
     reason of such membership, be considered to be officers or 
     employees of the United States.
       (12) Stipends.--The members of the Board, while attending 
     meetings of the Board or 

[[Page H 11717]]

     while engaged in duties related to such meetings or other 
     activities of the Board pursuant to this subtitle, shall be 
     entitled to a stipend. Such stipend shall be at the rate of 
     $150 per day for which the Board member has been officially 
     recorded as having worked, except that no member may be paid 
     a total stipend amount in any calendar year in excess of 
     $5,000.
       (c) Officers and Staff.--
       (1) Executive director.--The Corporation shall have an 
     Executive Director, and such other staff, as may be appointed 
     by the Board for terms and at rates of compensation to be 
     fixed by the Board.
       (2) Annual rate.--No staff of the Corporation may be 
     compensated by the Corporation at an annual rate of pay which 
     exceeds the basic rate of pay in effect from time to time for 
     level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (3) Citizenship.--No individual other than a citizen of the 
     United States may be a member of the Board of Directors, or 
     staff of the Corporation.
       (4) Service.--All officers and employees shall serve at the 
     pleasure of the Board.
       (5) Qualification.--No political test or qualification may 
     be used in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking other 
     personnel actions with respect to officers, agents, or 
     employees of the Corporation.
       (d) Powers of the Corporation.--
       (1) Generally.--The Corporation is authorized to obtain 
     grants from, and make contracts with, individuals and with 
     private, State, and Federal agencies, organizations, and 
     institutions.
       (2) Hiring authority.--The Corporation may hire, or accept 
     the voluntary services of, consultants, experts, advisory 
     boards, and panels to aid the Corporation in carrying out the 
     purposes of this subtitle.
       (e) Financial Management and Records.--
       (1) Audits.--The accounts of the Corporation shall be 
     audited annually in accordance with generally accepted 
     auditing standards by independent certified public 
     accountants. The audits shall be conducted at the place where 
     the accounts of the Corporation are normally kept. All books, 
     accounts, financial records, reports, files, and all other 
     papers, things, or property belonging to or in use by the 
     Corporation and necessary to facilitate the audits shall be 
     made available to the person conducting the audit.
       (2) Report.--The report by each such independent audit 
     shall be included in the annual report to Congress required 
     by section 2602.

     SEC. 2552. FUNDING.

       (a) Fund.--There is hereby established in the Treasury a 
     fund that shall be known as the District of Columbia 
     Scholarship Fund, to be administered by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.
       (b) Disbursement.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall make 
     available and disburse to the corporation, at the beginning 
     of each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, such funds as have 
     been appropriated to the District of Columbia Scholarship 
     Fund for the fiscal year in which such disbursement is to be 
     made.
       (c) Availability.--Funds authorized to be appropriated 
     under this subtitle shall remain available until expended.
       (d) Uses.--Funds authorized to be appropriated under this 
     subtitle shall be used by the Corporation in a prudent and 
     financially responsible manner, solely for scholarships, 
     contracts, and administrative costs.
       (e) Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Fund--
       (A) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1996; and
       (B) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, and $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
       (2) Limitation.--Not more than $500,000 may be used in any 
     fiscal year by the Corporation for any purpose other than 
     assistance to students.

     SEC. 2553. SCHOLARSHIPS AUTHORIZED.

       (a) In General.--The District of Columbia Scholarship 
     Corporation established under section 2501 is authorized in 
     accordance with this subtitle to award scholarships to 
     students in grades K-12--
       (1) who are District of Columbia residents; and
       (2) whose families are at or below 185 percent of the 
     Federal poverty guidelines updated annually in the Federal 
     Register by the Department of Health and Human Services under 
     authority of section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981.
       (b) Use of Scholarship.--A scholarship may be used only 
     for--
       (1) the cost of the tuition of a private or independent 
     school located within the geographic boundaries of the 
     District of Columbia or the cost of the tuition of public, 
     private, or independent school located within Montgomery 
     County, Maryland; Prince Georges County, Maryland; Arlington 
     County, Virginia; Alexandria City, Virginia; Falls Church 
     City, Virginia; or Fairfax County, Virginia; or
       (2) the cost of fees and other expenses for instructional 
     services provided to students on school grounds outside of 
     regular school hours or the cost of transportation for a 
     student enrolled in a District of Columbia public school, 
     public charter school, or independent or private school 
     participating in the tuition scholarship program.
       (c) Not School Aid.--A scholarship shall be considered 
     assistance to the student and shall not be considered 
     assistance to the school.

     SEC. 2554. ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--A student who is entitled to receive a 
     public school education in the District of Columbia and who 
     meets the requirements of section 2553(a) is eligible for a 
     scholarship under subsections (c) and (d) of section 2555.
       (b) Priority in Year One.--In fiscal year 1996, priority 
     shall be given to students currently enrolled in a District 
     of Columbia public school or preparing to enter kindergarten 
     in 1996.
       (c) Subsequent Priority.--In subsequent fiscal years, 
     priority shall be given to scholarship recipients from the 
     preceding year.

     SEC. 2555. SCHOLARSHIPS.

       (a) Awards.--From the funds made available under this 
     subtitle, the Corporation shall award scholarships and make 
     payments, on behalf of the student, to participating schools 
     as described in section 2559.
       (b) Notification.--Each school that enrolls scholarship 
     students shall notify the Corporation--
       (A) not later than 10 days after the date that a student is 
     enrolled, of the names, addresses, and grade level of each 
     scholarship student to the Corporation; and
       (B) not later than 10 days after the date of the withdrawal 
     of any scholarship student.
       (c) Tuition Scholarship Amount.--
       (1) Below poverty level.--For a student whose family income 
     is at or below the poverty level, a tuition scholarship 
     amount may not exceed the lesser of--
       (A) the cost of a school's tuition; or
       (B) $3,000 in 1996 with such amount adjusted in proportion 
     to changes in the Consumer Price Index of all urban consumers 
     published by the Department of Labor for each of fiscal years 
     1997 through 2000.
       (2) Above poverty level.--For a student whose family income 
     is greater than the poverty level, but not more than 185 
     percent above the poverty level, a tuition scholarship amount 
     may not exceed the lesser of--
       (A) 50 percent of the cost of a school's tuition; or
       (B) $1,500 in 1996 with such amount adjusted in proportion 
     to changes in the Consumer Price Index of all urban consumers 
     published by the Department of Labor for each of fiscal years 
     1997 through 2000.
       (d) Fee or Transportation Scholarship Amount.--The fee or 
     transportation scholarship amount may not exceed the lesser 
     of--
       (1) fees for instructional services provided to students on 
     school grounds outside of regular school hours or the costs 
     of transportation for students enrolled in the District of 
     Columbia public schools, public charter schools, or 
     independent or private schools participating in the tuition 
     scholarship program; or
       (2) $500 in fiscal year 1996 with such amount adjusted in 
     proportion to the changes in the Consumer Price Index of all 
     urban consumers published by the Department of Labor for each 
     of the fiscal years 1997 through 2000.
       (e) Proportion of Different Types of Scholarships.--In each 
     year, the Corporation shall ensure that the number of 
     scholarships awarded for tuition and the number awarded for 
     fees or transportation shall be equal, to the extent 
     practicable.
       (f) Funding Shortfall.--If, after the District of Columbia 
     Scholarship Corporation determines the total number of 
     eligible applicants for an academic year surpasses the amount 
     of funds available in a fiscal year to fund all awards for 
     such academic year, a random selection process shall be used 
     to determine which eligible applicants receive awards.
       (g) Exception.--Subsection (e) shall not apply to 
     individuals receiving scholarship priority described in 
     subsections (b) and (c) of section 2554.

     SEC. 2556. SCHOOL ELIGIBILITY FOR TUITION SCHOLARSHIPS.

       (a) Application.--A school that desires to accept tuition 
     scholarship students for a school year shall file an 
     application with the Corporation by July 1 of the preceding 
     school year, except that in fiscal year 1996, schools shall 
     file such applications by such date as the Corporation shall 
     designate for such purpose. In the application, the school 
     shall--
       (1) certify that it has operated during the current school 
     year with not less than 25 students,
       (2) assure that it will comply with all applicable 
     requirements of this subtitle; and
       (3) provide the most recent financial audit, completed not 
     earlier than 3 years before the date such application is 
     filed, from an independent certified public accountant using 
     generally accepted auditing standards.
       (b) Eligibility Certification.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), not 
     later than 60 days after receipt of such information, the 
     Corporation shall certify the eligibility of a school to 
     participate in the tuition scholarship program.
       (2) Continuation.--Eligibility shall continue in subsequent 
     years unless revoked as described in subsection (d).
       (3) Exception for 1996.--In fiscal year 1996 after receipt 
     of the information described in subsection (a), the 
     Corporation shall certify the eligibility of a school to 
     participate in the tuition scholarship program at the 
     earliest practicable date.
       (c) New Schools.--
       (1) In general.--A school that did not operate in the 
     preceding academic year may apply for a 1-year provisional 
     certification of eligibility to participate in the tuition 
     scholarship program for a single school year by providing to 
     the Corporation not later than July 1 of the preceding 
     calendar year for 

[[Page H 11718]]

     which such school intends to begin operations--
       (A) a list of the organization's board of directors;
       (B) letters of support from not less than 10 members of the 
     community;
       (C) a business plan;
       (D) intended course of study;
       (E) assurances that it will begin operations with not less 
     than 25 students; and
       (F) assurances that it will comply with all applicable 
     requirements of this subtitle.
       (2) Certification.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of receipt of the information referred to in paragraph (1), 
     the Corporation shall certify in writing the school's 
     provisional eligibility for the tuition scholarship program 
     unless good cause exists to deny certification.
       (3) Denial of certification.--If certification or 
     provisional certification is denied for participation in the 
     tuition scholarship program, the Corporation shall provide a 
     written explanation to the applicant school of the reasons 
     for such decision.
       (d) Revocation of Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--Upon written petition from the parent of a 
     tuition scholarship student or on the Corporation's own 
     motion, the Corporation may, after notice and hearing, revoke 
     a school's certification of eligibility for tuition 
     scholarships for the subsequent school year for good cause, 
     including a finding of a pattern of violation of program 
     requirements described in section 2557(a).
       (2) Explanation.--If the eligibility of a school is 
     revoked, the Corporation shall provide a written explanation 
     for its decision to such school.

     SEC. 2557. TUITION SCHOLARSHIP PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   INDEPENDENT AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

       (a) Independent and Private School Requirements.--
     Independent and private schools participating in the tuition 
     scholarship program shall--
       (1) not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or 
     national origin, or on the basis of a student's disabilities 
     if the school is equipped to provide an appropriate 
     education;
       (2) abide by all applicable health and safety requirements 
     of the District of Columbia public schools;
       (3) provide to the Corporation not later than June 30 of 
     each year the most recent financial audit completed not 
     earlier than 3 years before the date the application is filed 
     from an independent certified public accountant using 
     generally accepted auditing standards;
       (4) abide by all local regulations in effect for 
     independent or private schools;
       (5) provide data to the Corporation as set forth in section 
     2562, and conform to tuition requirements as set forth in 
     section 2555; and
       (6) charge tuition scholarship recipients the same tuition 
     amount as other students who are residents of the District of 
     Columbia and enrolled in the same school.
       (b) Compliance.--The Corporation may require documentation 
     of compliance with the requirements of subsection (a), but 
     neither the Corporation nor any governmental entity may 
     impose additional requirements upon independent and private 
     schools as a condition of participation.
       (c) Withdrawal from Program.--Schools may withdraw from the 
     tuition scholarship program at any time, refunding to the 
     Corporation the proportion of any scholarship payments 
     already received for the remaining days in the school year on 
     a pro rata basis. If a school withdraws during an academic 
     year, it shall permit scholarship students to complete the 
     year at their own expense.

     SEC. 2558. CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.

       Nothing in this subtitle shall affect the rights of 
     students or the obligations of the District of Columbia 
     public schools under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act.

     SEC. 2559. PAYMENTS FOR TUITION SCHOLARSHIPS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Proportional payment.--The Corporation shall make 
     tuition scholarship payments to participating schools not 
     later than October 15 of each year equal to half the total 
     value of the scholarships awarded to students enrolled at 
     such school, and half of such amount not later than January 
     15 of the following calendar year.
       (2) Pro rata amounts for student withdrawl.--
       (A) Before payment.--If a student withdraws before a 
     tuition scholarship payment is made, the school shall receive 
     a pro rata amount based on the school's tuition for the 
     number of days the student was enrolled.
       (B) After payment.--If a student withdraws after a tuition 
     scholarship payment is made, the school shall refund to the 
     Corporation the proportion of any scholarship payments 
     already received for the remaining days of the school year on 
     a pro rata basis. Such refund shall occur not later than 30 
     days after the date of the withdrawal of a student.
       (b) Fund Transfers.--The Corporation shall make tuition 
     scholarship payments to participating schools by electronic 
     funds transfer. If such an arrangement is not available, the 
     school shall submit an alternative proposal to the 
     Corporation for approval.

     SEC. 2560. TUITION SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION PROCEDURES.

       The Corporation shall implement a schedule and procedures 
     for processing applications for the tuition scholarship 
     program that includes a list of eligible schools, 
     distribution of information to parents and the general 
     public, and deadlines for steps in the application and award 
     process.

     SEC. 2561. TUITION SCHOLARSHIP REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--A school enrolling tuition scholarship 
     students shall report not later than July 30 of each year in 
     a manner prescribed by the Corporation, the following data:
       (1) Standardized test scores, if any, for scholarship 
     students.
       (2) Grade advancement for scholarship students.
       (3) Disciplinary actions taken with respect to scholarship 
     students.
       (4) Graduation, college admission test scores, and college 
     admission rates, if applicable for scholarship students.
       (5) Types and amounts of parental involvement required for 
     all families.
       (6) Student attendance for scholarship students.
       (7) General information on curriculum, programs, 
     facilities, credentials of personnel, and disciplinary rules.
       (b) Confidentiality.--No personal identifiers may be used 
     in the body of such report except that the Corporation may 
     request such confidential information solely for the purpose 
     of verification.

     SEC. 2562. FEE OR TRANSPORTATION SCHOLARSHIP PROCEDURES AND 
                   CRITERIA.

       (a) Policies and Procedures.--The Corporation shall 
     implement policies and procedures and criteria for 
     administering scholarships for use with providers approved by 
     the Corporation either for the cost of fees for instructional 
     services provided to students on school grounds outside of 
     regular school hours or for the costs of transportation for 
     students enrolled in District of Columbia public schools, 
     public charter schools, or independent or private schools 
     participating in the tuition scholarship program.
       (b) Information Dissemination.--The Corporation shall 
     distribute information describing the policies and procedures 
     and criteria developed pursuant to subsection (a), using the 
     most efficient and practicable methods available, to 
     potential applicants and other interested parties within the 
     geographic boundaries of the District of Columbia.

     SEC. 2563. PROGRAM APPRAISAL.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Corporation shall provide for an 
     evaluation of the tuition scholarship program, including--
        (1) comparison of test scores between tuition scholarship 
     students and District of Columbia public school students of 
     similar background, including by income level;
       (2) comparison of graduation rates between tuition 
     scholarship students and District of Columbia public school 
     students of similar background, including by income level; 
     and
       (3) satisfaction of parents of scholarship students.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than September 1 of each 
     year, the Corporation shall submit a progress report on the 
     scholarship program to the appropriate congressional 
     committees.

     SEC. 2564. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Jurisdiction.--The United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any legal 
     challenges to the tuition scholarship program and shall 
     provide expedited review.
       (2) Protectable interests.--Parents and children shall be 
     considered to have a separate protectable interest and 
     entitled to intervene as defendants in any such action.
       (3) Timely review.--The court shall render a prompt 
     decision.
       (b) Appeals.--If the tuition scholarship program or any 
     part thereof is enjoined or ruled invalid, the decision is 
     directly appealable to the United States Supreme Court.
                 Subtitle K--Partnerships With Business

     SEC. 2601. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this title to leverage private sector 
     funds utilizing initial Federal investments in order to 
     provide students and teachers within the District of Columbia 
     public schools and public charter schools with access to 
     state-of-the-art educational technology, to establish a 
     regional job training and employment center, to strengthen 
     workforce preparation initiatives for students within the 
     District of Columbia public schools and public charter 
     schools, and to coordinate private sector investments in 
     carrying out this title.

     SEC. 2602. DUTIES OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Superintendent of the District of Columbia 
     public schools--
       (1) shall provide a grant to a private, nonprofit 
     corporation that meets the eligibility criteria under section 
     2603 for the purposes of carrying out the duties under 
     section 2604; and
       (2) shall establish a nonprofit organization in accordance 
     with the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act for 
     the purpose of carrying out the duties under section 2605.

     SEC. 2603. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PRIVATE, NONPROFIT 
                   CORPORATION.

       A private, nonprofit corporation shall be eligible to 
     receive a grant under section 2602(1) if the corporation is a 
     national business organization which is incorporated in the 
     District of Columbia and which--

[[Page H 11719]]

       (1) has a board of directors which includes members who are 
     also chief executive officers of technology-related 
     corporations involved in education and workforce development 
     issues;
       (2) has extensive practical experience with initiatives 
     that link business resources and expertise with education and 
     training systems;
       (3) has experience in working with State and local 
     educational entities throughout the United States on the 
     integration of academic studies with workforce preparation 
     programs; and
       (4) has a nationwide structure through which additional 
     resources can be leveraged and innovative practices 
     disseminated.

     SEC. 2604. DUTIES OF THE PRIVATE, NONPROFIT CORPORATION.

       (a) District Education and Learning Technologies 
     Advancement Council.--
       (1) Establishment.--The corporation shall establish a 
     council to be known as the ``District Education and Learning 
     Technologies Advancement Council'' or ``DELTA Council'' (in 
     this title referred to as the ``council'').
       (2) Membership.--
       (A) In general.--The corporation shall appoint members to 
     the council. An individual shall be appointed as a member to 
     the council on the basis of the commitment of the individual, 
     or the entity which the individual is representing, to 
     providing time, energy, and resources to the council.
       (B) Compensation.--Members of the council shall serve 
     without compensation.
       (3) Duties.--The council--
       (A) shall advise the corporation in the duties of the 
     corporation under subsections (b) through (d) of this 
     section; and
       (B) shall assist the corporation in leveraging private 
     sector resources for the purpose of carrying out such duties 
     of the corporation.
       (b) Access to State-of-the-Art Educational Technology.--
       (1) In general.--The corporation, in conjunction with the 
     Superintendent, students, parents, and teachers, shall 
     establish and implement strategies to ensure access to state-
     of-the-art educational technology within the District of 
     Columbia public schools and public charter schools 
     established in accordance with this Act.
       (2) Technology assessment.--
       (A) In general.--In establishing and implementing the 
     strategies under paragraph (1), the corporation, not later 
     than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     shall provide for an assessment of the current availability 
     of state-of-the-art educational technology within the 
     District of Columbia public schools and public charter 
     schools established in accordance with this Act.
       (B) Conduct of assessment.--In providing for the assessment 
     under subparagraph (A), the corporation--
       (i) shall provide for on-site inspections of the state-of-
     the-art educational technology within a minimum sampling of 
     District of Columbia public schools and public charter 
     schools established in accordance with this Act; and
       (ii) shall ensure proper input from students, parents, 
     teachers, and other school officials through the use of focus 
     groups and other appropriate mechanisms.
       (C) Results of assessment.--The corporation shall ensure 
     that the assessment carried out under this paragraph 
     provides, at a minimum, necessary information on state-of-
     the-art educational technology within the District of 
     Columbia public schools and public charter schools 
     established in accordance with this Act, including--
       (i) the extent to which typical public schools within the 
     District of Columbia have access to such state-of-the-art 
     educational technology and training for such technology;
       (ii) how such schools are using such technology;
       (iii) the need for additional technology and the need for 
     infrastructure for the implementation of such additional 
     technology;
       (iv) the need for computer hardware, software, training, 
     and funding for such additional technology or infrastructure; 
     and
       (v) the potential for computer linkages among District of 
     Columbia public schools and public charter schools.
       (3) Short-term technology plan.--
       (A) In general.--Based upon the results of the technology 
     assessment under paragraph (2), the corporation shall develop 
     a 3-year plan that includes goals, priorities, and strategies 
     for obtaining the resources necessary to implement strategies 
     to ensure access to state-of-the-art educational technology 
     within the District of Columbia public schools and public 
     charter schools established in accordance with this Act.
       (B) Implementation.--The corporation, in conjunction with 
     schools, students, parents, and teachers, shall implement the 
     plan developed under subparagraph (A).
       (4) Long-term technology plan.--Prior to the completion of 
     the implementation of the short-term plan under paragraph 
     (3), the corporation shall develop a plan under which the 
     corporation will continue to coordinate the donation of 
     private sector resources for maintaining the continuous 
     improvement and upgrading of state-of-the-art educational 
     technology within the District of Columbia public schools and 
     public charter schools established in accordance with this 
     Act.
       (c) District Employment and Learning Center.--
       (1) Establishment.--The corporation shall establish a 
     center to be known as the ``District Employment and Learning 
     Center'' or ``DEAL Center'' (in this title referred to as the 
     ``center''), which shall serve as a regional institute 
     providing job training and employment assistance.
       (2) Duties.--
       (A) Job training and employment assistance program.--The 
     center shall establish a program to provide job training and 
     employment assistance in the District of Columbia.
       (B) Conduct of program.--In carrying out the program 
     established under subparagraph (A), the center--
       (i) shall provide job training and employment assistance to 
     youths who have attained the age of 18 but have not attained 
     the age of 26, who are residents of the District of Columbia, 
     and who are in need of such job training and employment 
     assistance for an appropriate period not to exceed 2 years;
       (ii) shall work to establish partnerships and enter into 
     agreements with appropriate governmental agencies of the 
     District of Columbia to serve individuals participating in 
     appropriate Federal programs, including programs under the 
     Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the 
     Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program under 
     part F of title IV of the Social Security Act, the Carl D. 
     Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), and the School-to-Work Opportunities 
     Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.);
       (iii) shall conduct such job training, as appropriate, 
     through a consortia of colleges, universities, community 
     colleges, and other appropriate providers in the District of 
     Columbia metropolitan area;
       (iv) shall design modular training programs that allow 
     students to enter and leave the training curricula depending 
     on their opportunities for job assignments with employers; 
     and
       (v) shall utilize resources from businesses to enhance 
     work-based learning opportunities and facilitate access by 
     students to work-based learning and work-experience through 
     temporary work assignments with employers in the District of 
     Columbia metropolitan area.
       (C) Compensation.--The center may provide compensation to 
     youths participating in the program under this paragraph for 
     part-time work assigned in conjunction with training. Such 
     compensation may include needs-based payments and 
     reimbursement of expenses.
       (d) Workforce Preparation Initiatives.--
       (1) In general.--The corporation shall establish 
     initiatives with the District of Columbia public schools and 
     public charter schools established in accordance with this 
     Act, appropriate governmental agencies, and businesses and 
     other private entities, to facilitate the integration of 
     rigorous academic studies with workforce preparation programs 
     in District of Columbia public schools and public charter 
     schools.
       (2) Conduct of initiatives.--In carrying out the 
     initiatives under paragraph (1), the corporation shall, at a 
     minimum, actively develop, expand, and promote the following 
     programs:
       (A) Career academy programs in secondary schools, as 
     established in certain District of Columbia public schools, 
     which provide a ``school-within-a-school'' concept, focusing 
     on career preparation and the integration of the academy 
     programs with vocational and technical curriculum.
       (B) Programs carried out in the District of Columbia that 
     are funded under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 
     (20 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.).
       (e) Professional Development Program for Teachers and 
     Administrators.--
       (1) Establishment of program.--The corporation shall 
     establish a consortium consisting of the corporation, 
     teachers, school administrators, and a consortium of 
     universities located in the District of Columbia (in 
     existence on the date of the enactment of this Act) for the 
     purpose of establishing a program for the professional 
     development of teachers and school administrators employed by 
     the District of Columbia public schools and public charter 
     schools established in accordance with this Act.
       (2) Conduct of program.--In carrying out the program 
     established under paragraph (1), the consortium established 
     under such paragraph, in consultation with the World Class 
     Schools Panel and the Superintendent, shall, at a minimum, 
     provide for the following:
       (A) Professional development for teachers which is 
     consistent with the model professional development programs 
     for teachers under section 402(a)(3), or is consistent with 
     the core curriculum developed by the Superintendent under 
     section 411(a)(1), as the case may be, except that in fiscal 
     year 1996, such professional development shall focus on 
     curriculum for elementary grades in reading and mathematics 
     that have been demonstrated to be effective for students from 
     low-income backgrounds.
       (B) Private sector training of teachers in the use, 
     application, and operation of state-of-the-art technology in 
     education.
       (C) Training for school principals and other school 
     administrators in effective private sector management 
     practices for the purpose of site-based management in the 
     District of Columbia public schools and training in the 
     management of public charter schools established in 
     accordance with this Act.
       (f) Other Private Sector Assistance and Coordination.--The 
     corporation shall coordinate private sector involvement and 
     voluntary assistance efforts in support of repairs and 
     improvements to schools in the District of Columbia, 
     including--

[[Page H 11720]]

       (1) private sector monetary and in-kind contributions to 
     repair and improve school building facilities consistent with 
     section 601;
       (2) the development of proposals to be considered by the 
     Superintendent for inclusion in the long-term reform plan to 
     be developed pursuant to section 101, and other proposals to 
     be submitted to the Superintendent, the Board of Education, 
     the Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the Authority, 
     the Administrator of the General Services Administration, or 
     the Congress; and
       (3) a program of rewards for student accomplishment at 
     participating local businesses.

     SEC. 2605. JOBS FOR D.C. GRADUATES PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The nonprofit organization established 
     under section 2602(2) shall establish a program, to be known 
     as the ``Jobs for D.C. Graduates Program'', to assist the 
     District of Columbia public schools and public charter 
     schools established in accordance with this Act in organizing 
     and implementing a school-to-work transition system with a 
     priority on providing assistance to at-risk youths and 
     disadvantaged youths.
       (b) Conduct of Program.--In carrying out the program 
     established under subsection (a), the nonprofit organization, 
     consistent with the policies of the nationally-recognized 
     Jobs for America's Graduates, Inc.--
       (1) shall establish performance standards for such program;
       (2) shall provide ongoing enhancement and improvements in 
     such program;
       (3) shall provide research and reports on the results of 
     such program; and
       (4) shall provide pre-service and in-service training of 
     all staff.

     SEC. 2606. MATCHING FUNDS.

       The corporation shall, to the extent practicable, provide 
     funds, an in kind contribution, or a combination thereof, for 
     the purpose of carrying out the duties of the corporation 
     under section 2604, as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 1996, $1 for every $1 of Federal funds 
     provided under this title for section 2604.
       (2) For fiscal year 1997, $3 for every $1 of Federal funds 
     provided under this title for section 2604.
       (3) For fiscal year 1998, $5 for every $1 of Federal funds 
     provided under this title for section 2604.

     SEC. 2607. REPORT.

       The corporation shall prepare and submit to the Congress on 
     a quarterly basis, or, with respect to fiscal year 1996, on a 
     biannual basis, a report which shall contain--
       (1) the activities the corporation has carried out, 
     including the duties of the corporation described in section 
     2604, for the 3-month period ending on the date of the 
     submission of the report, or, with respect to fiscal year 
     1996, the 6-month period ending on the date of the submission 
     of the report;
       (2) an assessment of the use of funds or other resources 
     donated to the corporation;
       (3) the results of the assessment carried out under section 
     2604(b)(2); and
       (4) a description of the goals and priorities of the 
     corporation for the 3-month period beginning on the date of 
     the submission of the report, or, with respect to fiscal year 
     1996, the 6-month period beginning on the date of the 
     submission of the report.

     SEC. 2608. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization.--
       (1) Delta council; access to state-of-the-art educational 
     technology; workforce preparation initiatives; other private 
     sector assistance and coordination.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out subsections (a), (b), (d) and 
     (f) of section 2604 $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     1996, 1997, and 1998.
       (2) Deal center.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out section 2604(c) $2,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
       (3) Professional development program for teachers and 
     administrators.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out section 2604(e) $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
       (4) Jobs for d.c. graduates program.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out section 2605--
       (A) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1996; and
       (B) $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1997 through 
     2000.
       (b) Availability.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under subsection (a) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 2609. TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPPORT; SENSE OF THE 
                   CONGRESS RELATING TO CONTINUATION OF 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Termination of Federal Support.--The authority under 
     this title to provide assistance to the corporation or any 
     other entity established pursuant to this title (except for 
     assistance to the nonprofit organization established under 
     section 2602(2) for the purpose of carrying out section 2605) 
     shall terminate on October 1, 1998.
       (b) Sense of the Congress Relating to Continuation of 
     Activities.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the activities of the corporation under section 2604 
     should continue to be carried out after October 1, 1998, with 
     resources made available from the private sector; and
       (2) the corporation should provide oversight and 
     coordination of such activities after such date.
      Subtitle L--Parent Attendance at Parent-Teacher Conferences

     SEC. 2651. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) Policy.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Mayor of the District of Columbia is authorized to 
     develop and implement a policy requiring all residents with 
     children attending a District of Columbia public school 
     system to attend and participate in at least 1 parent-teacher 
     conference every 90 days during the school year.
       (b) Withhold Benefits.--The Mayor is authorized to withhold 
     payment of benefits received under the program under part A 
     of title IV of the Social Security Act as a condition of 
     participation in these parent-teacher conferences.

     SEC. 2652. SUBMISSION OF PLAN.

       If the Mayor elects to utilize the powers granted under 
     section 2651, the Mayor shall submit to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services a plan for implementation. The plan 
     shall include--
       (1) plans to administer the program;
       (2) plans to conduct evaluations on the success or failure 
     of the program;
       (3) plans to monitor the participation of parents;
       (4) plans to withhold and reinstate benefits; and
       (5) long-term plans for the program.

     SEC. 2653. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       Beginning on October 1, 1996 and each year thereafter, the 
     District shall annually report to the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services and to the Congress on the progress and 
     results of the program described in section 2651 of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record.

                          Legislative History

       During the first few months of the 104th Congress, Speaker 
     Newt Gingrich appointed Representative Steve Gunderson (R-WI) 
     to lead an education task force to help establish a world 
     class education system in the Nation's capital. As a part of 
     the task force activities, Representative Gunderson convened 
     numerous meetings with individuals and interested groups in 
     the District of Columbia, including the office of the Mayor 
     of the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Delegate 
     Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Superintendent of the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools, the President of the District of 
     Columbia Board of Education, Board of Education members, 
     educators, union members, parent education reform groups, 
     National education reform experts, and many others.
       Additionally, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, together with 
     Speaker Gingrich, convened a town meeting at Eastern High 
     School to hear from District of Columbia citizens about their 
     concerns with the current education system.
       Legislatively, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
     Investigations of the Economic and Educational Opportunities 
     Committee held hearings on the subject of District of 
     Columbia education reform on May 12, 1995, June 8, 1995 and 
     June 27, 1995. Withnesses included, among others, the 
     President of the Board of Education, the Superintendent of 
     the District of Columbia Schools, the Committee on Public 
     Education, Parents United for District of Columbia Public 
     Schools, City Council members William Lightfoot and Kathleen 
     Patterson, principals of public schools, the National Urban 
     Coalition, Ted Kolderie of the Center for Policy Studies, the 
     President of the Washington Teachers' Union, the President of 
     the American Federation of Teachers, the Education First 
     Coalition, parents, and a representative of the Office of the 
     Mayor.
       The education amendment to the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations legislation is the end product of these 
     meetings and hearings. It represents a balancing of many 
     competing interests, and is designed to transform the current 
     education system into one of the best in the world.


              title ii--district of columbia school reform

              Subtitle A--District of Columbia Reform Plan

       Subtitle A of Title II of the bill requires that the 
     Superintendent of Schools, with approval of the Board of 
     Education, develop a long term reform plan for the District 
     of Columbia School Public System. This provision builds on 
     the efforts currently underway by the District. The long term 
     reform plan outlined in the legislation uses the same 
     philosophy outlined by School Board President Wilma Harvey 
     and Superintendent Franklin Smith in the one-year action plan 
     entitled ``Accelerating Education Reform in the District of 
     Columbia: Building on BESST'' that was submitted to Rep. 
     Steve Gunderson on July 13, 1995.
       Subtitle A requires that the plan be consistent with the 
     financial plan and budget for the District of Columbia 
     required by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-8). The 
     legislation requires that the Superintendent consult with the 
     Board of Education, Mayor, District of Columbia Council, and 
     the Authority. The Superintendent is also required to include 
     the public and any interested groups or organizations in the 
     development of this process--similar to the approach outlined 
     by the Superintendent in the District of Columbia's 

[[Page H 11721]]

     ``Planning Guide for Local School Restructuring Teams'' 
     report.
       The long term report focuses on how the District of 
     Columbia is preparing to become a world-class education 
     system and model for the nation. The legislation asks the 
     District of Columbia to describe how it plans to accomplish 
     certain goals and objectives. Any amendments to the plan 
     shall be submitted by the Superintendent, with the approval 
     of the Board of Education, to Congress and must be consistent 
     with section 201 of the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (Public 
     Law 104-8).

                   Subtitle B--Public Charter Schools

       Subtitle B of this amendment authorizes the establishment 
     of public charter schools. On October 23, 1995, the Education 
     and Libraries Committee of the DC Council passed, by a vote 
     of 4-0, legislation authorizing the establishment of 
     independent public charter schools. The DC Council 
     legislation is very similar to this subtitle. A 
     recommendation that either the DC Council or Congress enact 
     legislation authorizing independent public charter schools 
     was also included in the reform plan submitted by the 
     Superintendent and the president of the Board of Education on 
     July 13, 1995, to Rep. Steve Gunderson.
       Public charter schools represent a new type of public 
     school that maintains the essential elements of public 
     education: public charter schools are funded by the public, 
     are open to the public, and are accountable to the public for 
     results. Public charter schools are different, however, from 
     traditional public schools in that they are not required to 
     be managed by a government bureaucracy. Educators may 
     establish new schools and have an opportunity to realize 
     their educational vision for what constitutes a quality 
     education. A public charter school may not charge tuition, 
     except to nonresidents, and must be open to any student 
     regardless of aptitude. A school may limit admission to 
     certain grade-levels and may choose to have an instructional 
     focus, such as the arts, science, or advanced technology.
       Public charter schools are a key component of a 
     comprehensive reform strategy. Public charter schools would 
     encourage innovation and entrepreneurialism by educators. 
     They would be free from many of the burdensome rules and 
     regulations that educators find interferes with their ability 
     to provide excellence in education. Public charter schools 
     have full control over their day-to-day operations, including 
     budgeting and personnel, but they must be non-sectarian 
     and non-profit. Public charter schools may enter into 
     contracts or leases for any service, but contracts over 
     $10,000 in value must be reviewed by the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority.
       The amendment also contains safeguards to ensure that a 
     two-tiered system of public schools would not result from the 
     creation of public charter schools. Eligible chartering 
     authorities are required to give special consideration to 
     petitions to establish public charter schools that would 
     focus on students with special needs, such as students with 
     disabilities, disruptive students, or students who have 
     dropped out. In addition, the new funding formula for public 
     education described in subtitle E is expected to result in 
     additional funding for public charter schools serving 
     students with special needs. As a result, I would expect that 
     quality programs would be encouraged that would serve such 
     students, improving equity and raising the quality of their 
     education.
       In order to encourage a diversity of public charter 
     schools, as well as to encourage healthy competition, 
     multiple entities must be permitted to approve charter 
     petitions. This subtitle designates as eligible chartering 
     authorities the Board of Education and five public or 
     federally-chartered universities located in the District of 
     Columbia. To ensure common standards of quality, this 
     subtitle designates a detailed list of issues that petitions 
     to establish public charter schools must address and a 
     uniform procedure for their consideration, regardless of 
     which eligible chartering authority is reviewing such a 
     petition. Mindful of the fact that the legislation passed by 
     the DC Council Education and Libraries Committee also 
     establishes a charter schools commission, which is not 
     included in this Act, this subtitle allows the DC Council to 
     designate additional entities as eligible chartering 
     authorities.
       While this subtitle would designate multiple chartering 
     authorities, a common framework for accountability is 
     desirable for public charter schools. Therefore, this 
     subtitle authorityes the Board of Education, upon the 
     recommendation of the Superintendent, to deny renewal of a 
     public charter school if its students are performing below 
     average on the assessments to be established pursuant to 
     subtitle D. Parental choice, informed by a school's 
     performance on the common student assessments and other 
     factors that a parent may deem important, constitutes another 
     important aspect of accountability. Further, the charter of a 
     school may be revoked at any time for financial mismanagement 
     or violation of this Act or other applicable laws.
       Within this framework of accountability for results, public 
     charter schools will provide teachers with an unprecedented 
     degree of flexibility and professional opportunity. Public 
     charter schools also offer families a greater degree of 
     choice, enabling parents to select the educational 
     environment that best suites their children's needs. Because 
     charter schools are supported through the enrollment-based 
     per capita funding formula described in subtitle E, a public 
     charter school must satisfy the parents of students enrolled 
     at the school or it will cease to exist.

                         Subtitle C--Even Start

       The inclusion of Even Start as a part of the D.C. schools 
     reform package is a reflection of Rep. Bill Goodling's 
     belief, as well as my own, in the power of family literacy to 
     insure positive educational outcomes for young children. Even 
     Start is based on the knowledge that children who have 
     parents who can help and support them in their educational 
     endeavors are more likely to succeed than those who have 
     parents with low literacy skills and little knowledge on how 
     to help their children succeed in school.
       In the recent national adult literacy survey there were 
     approximately 40 million adults who scored in the lowest 
     level of the literacy scale. Twenty percent of the population 
     of this country have been found to have minimal basic skills. 
     This is a strong indication that there is a high level of 
     illiteracy in our country. What is of major concern is that 
     many of these individuals are parents.
       As a result, it is difficult to believe that any effort to 
     increase the likelihood of school success for young children 
     in the District of Columbia will be completely effective if 
     it does not address the whole family. What is needed is a 
     comprehensive family literacy program which, in addition to 
     parent training, raises the literacy skills of participating 
     adults. The Even Start program meets this criteria.
       In order to avoid the duplication of programs serving the 
     District of Columbia, eligibility for the District of 
     Columbia to participate in the basic Even Start Grant program 
     has been eliminated. The current Even Start law has been 
     amended to provide a separate authorization amount for Even 
     Start programs in the District of Columbia. Funding for Even 
     Start programs funded under current law would be maintained 
     under this new authorization.
       Under the provisions of this legislation, the Department of 
     Education would be responsible for selecting grantees and 
     oversight of Even Start projects in the District of Columbia. 
     Five percent of available funds is provided to the Secretary 
     to provide technical assistance to eligible entities, 
     including one or more local nonprofit organizations, to 
     provide technical assistance to eligible entities in the area 
     of community development and coalition building. An 
     additional five percent would be provided to the National 
     Center for Family Literacy, a recognized authority in this 
     field, for technical assistance to eligible entities. It is 
     expected that the National Center for Family Literacy will 
     assist in ensuring that funded projects are of high quality 
     and provide the intensity of services necessary for success.
       In order to reach those individuals in greatest need of 
     services and families whose children are at greatest risk of 
     educational failure, eligibility for the District of Columbia 
     Even Start Program has been focused on those individuals 
     eligible to participate in an adult education program (i.e. 
     those without a high school diploma or GED or with low levels 
     of literacy). Parents who are still attending, or who are 
     eligible by age to attend, a public school in the District 
     of Columbia are also eligible in order to ensure that they 
     receive an adequate education and, therefore, are able to 
     assist their children to receive the best possible 
     education. It is recognized that teenage parents are at 
     great risk at becoming welfare dependents and that their 
     children often suffer because of their poor parenting 
     skills and low levels of education. Therefore, it is 
     important to include this group of young parents in the 
     list of those eligible for services under this program. 
     However, it is also the intent of this amendment that 
     these teenage parents receive the educational component of 
     the Even Start program as part of the regular education 
     program offered in District of Columbia schools. Further, 
     any child of a parent who meets criteria outlined above 
     and who is under the age of seven is eligible for 
     services.
       Finally, a priority is given to targeting services to 
     families living in a school attendance area where schools are 
     conducting a schoolwide program under Title 1 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In this way, services 
     will be focused on those families in greatest need.
       The most recent report distributed by the Department of 
     Education indicated that the average Even Start project did 
     not provide sufficiently intensive instruction and did not 
     obtain significantly greater gains when compared to a control 
     group. Approximately 50 percent of the projects had their 
     adults in adult education for fewer than 9 hours a month. 
     Many parents participating in Even Start have very low 
     literacy levels. It takes between 100 and 150 hours of 
     instruction to raise an individual one grade level. As a 
     result, 9 hours per month is not going to make the type of 
     difference in the lives of participants to enable them to 
     become--and remain--their child's first and most important 
     teacher. Therefore, the District of Columbia Even Start 
     initiative requires programs to be built on the findings of 
     the ``National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy 
     Programs,'' including the provision of intensive services in 
     parent training and adult literacy or adult education. It is 
     clear that programs which are of greater intensity 

[[Page H 11722]]

     produce superior results. Therefore, it is imperative that 
     only those projects which meet this requirement participate 
     in the District of Columbia Even Start program.
       In addition, the Chapter 1 Even Start Program is amended 
     through this legislation to include comparable language on 
     intensity of services. It is estimated that a quality Even 
     Start Program requires $225,000 per year to operate. The 
     District of Columbia Program authorization level assumes this 
     level of funding for each program by limiting the number of 
     projects which can be funded in a given year. Since this 
     legislation eliminates funding for the District of Columbia 
     under the basic Even Start program, the authorization amount 
     for the first year would include funds for the existing Even 
     Start projects as well as six new projects. Funding for the 
     remaining years under this authorization would allow for the 
     addition of six new projects each year as well as 
     continued funding for the original projects.
       Projects are also required to meet the matching 
     requirements contained in the basic Even Start law. However, 
     these requirements may be waived, in whole or in part, should 
     the eligible entity demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that they will otherwise be unable to participate 
     in the program.
       Due to inclusion of the match provision, and the 
     possibility that projects will utilize the entire amount 
     appropriated for this purpose, language has been included 
     which provides for a redistribution of excess funds among 
     grant recipients which can demonstrate additional need.
       Provision is made for an independent evaluation of the 
     District of Columbia Even Start program in order to determine 
     their effectiveness in providing high quality family literacy 
     services. This evaluation should be completed by March 1, 
     1999, with an interim report issued by March 1, 1998. The 
     results of the evaluation are to be used for purposes of 
     program improvement and for determining the number of 
     appropriate grants to be awarded by the Secretary in fiscal 
     year 2000. Although the amount authorized assumes a funding 
     level of $225,000 for each project fund, it may become 
     apparent, after the evaluation, that this amount is higher or 
     lower than necessary to provide high quality Even Start 
     Programs. It is, therefore, important that the Secretary be 
     able to adjust the number of grants awarded to reflect the 
     results of the evaluation.

 Subtitle D--World Class Schools Panel; Core Curriculum; Assessments; 
                          and Promotion Gates

       Subtitle D provides the assistance and the guidance 
     necessary for the District of Columbia public schools to 
     begin on the path toward a world-class education system. The 
     core of education is the curriculum. While schools should 
     have discretion with respect to some portions of the 
     curriculum, and full discretion with respect to instruction 
     and inputs, there is a legitimate public interest in ensuring 
     that public schools teach students a core of vital concepts, 
     factual knowledge, and skills. This care should address at 
     least the key academic content areas of English, mathematics, 
     science and history. There is a further legitimate public 
     interest in ensuring that students' competence in this core 
     curriculum represent a high level of achievement, in fact 
     that it be world-class.
       To assist the District, in particular the Superintendent 
     and Board of Education, in establishing such a core 
     curriculum, a panel of experts is established: the World 
     Class Schools Panel. In order to provide the perspective of 
     parents, one appointee is a parent of a student in the 
     District of Columbia public schools. The proposal to 
     establish such a panel has as its origin the request by the 
     Superintendent and the president of the Board of Education, 
     in a reform plan submitted to Rep. Steve Gunderson on July 
     13, 1995, for approximately $2 million for the development of 
     new curricula and assessments. Such a need exists in the 
     District public schools, but a nationally-established panel 
     of experts is the proper vehicle for such an effort. Further, 
     the panel is also directed to recommend model teacher 
     training programs that individuals schools, or the school 
     system, may adopt.
       Because even the formal adoption of a high-quality 
     curriculum constitutes only a minimal improvement if there is 
     no way to determine how well students are mastering the 
     curriculum, assessments that provide such information are 
     also vital. To be of maximum use, assessments must inform 
     parents of their child's progress, as well the progress of 
     the child's school. Such information needs to be placed in 
     the context of the performance of other schools, the 
     District, other states, the nation, and especially, other 
     nations that historically perform well on international 
     comparisons of student achievement, such as Germany, France, 
     Japan, and South Korea. Tools useful for developing such 
     assessments are becoming increasingly available, such as 
     through the third international math and science study, now 
     underway, or through publicly-released items from the 
     national assessment. Further, it is also important for such 
     assessments to satisfy professional standards of reliability 
     and freedom from bias, as established by the American 
     Psychological Association and the American Education Research 
     Association. To the degree that new assessments address such 
     technical standards, it is also useful to have such 
     assessments exemplify the range of knowledge and skills that 
     students are intended to master in the core curriculum. It is 
     the responsibility of the World Class Schools Panel to 
     develop, or adopt, the appropriate assessments to accomplish 
     these important purposes.
       While the Board of Education is free to reject the 
     recommendations of the Panel, if it chooses to do so it must 
     still establish its own core curriculum and assessments that 
     meet the requirements of this subtitle. The establishment of 
     new promotion criteria (``promotion gates'') by the 
     Superintendent and Board of Education, another reform 
     included in the reform plan submitted to Rep. Steve Gunderson 
     on July 13, 1995 by the Superintendent and president of the 
     Board of Education, is also required under this amendment. To 
     ensure coherence in the system, the new assessments measuring 
     achievement of the core curriculum will serve as one 
     criterion for such ``promotion gates,'' though not 
     necessarily the only criterion.

 Subtitle E--Per Capita District of Columbia Public School and Public 
                         Charter School Funding

       Subtitle E of Title II of the bill directs the District of 
     Columbia to develop a per pupil formula for funding K-12 
     education starting in FY 1997. This uniform formula will be 
     used to provide operating budgets on the basis of enrollment 
     for the school system as a whole and for individual public 
     charter schools. According to a January 1995 report by the 
     District of Columbia Committee on Public Education, ``Of the 
     40 largest school systems in the country, the District ranked 
     first in per pupil expenditures.'' The report further states 
     that, ``By almost any measure, student academic performance 
     has worsened.'' This information is disturbing and as a 
     result the District of Columbia is directed to establish a 
     uniform formula for funding the education of students 
     enrolled in either public charter schools authorized in 
     subtitle B of this amendment or the District of Columbia 
     School System, and to have the General Accounting Office do 
     an audit of the student enrollment count.
       To account for appropriate differences in the costs of 
     educating different types of students, the formula shall take 
     into account such variations for students at different grade 
     levels as well as for students with special needs. The 
     District will define ``special needs,'' but it is expected to 
     address such categories as students with disabilities, 
     students that have dropped out, and highly disruptive 
     students. Such a formula will clarify and focus decisions 
     regarding funding for public education around students' 
     needs.
       For FY 1996, $75,000 is authorized for the General 
     Accounting Office (GAO) to audit the student enrollment count 
     of the school system. For FY 1996 through FY 2000, $200,000 
     is authorized for each year for transition costs associated 
     with starting public charter schools. These funds are 
     necessary due to the school year beginning in September while 
     the fiscal year begins in October, therefore resulting in a 
     one month funding gap for any new public charter school.

          Subtitle F--School Facilities Repair and Improvement

       Subtitle F of this amendment begins to address the 
     facilities problems that plague the District of Columbia 
     schools. It is appalling that the schools of our Nation's 
     capital have had to be closed, as a result of judicial 
     intervention, because they were deemed unsafe for children. 
     This subtitle encourages assistance by the private sector and 
     government agencies to bring new life to the bricks and 
     mortar of the District of Columbia schools.
       A January 1995 report by the District of Columbia Committee 
     on Public Education entitled ``Our Children Are Still 
     Waiting'' noted that the ``District must generate a sense of 
     urgency in the business and philanthropic community and re-
     enlist them in targeted support for very particular, concrete 
     school reform goals.'' Congress agrees with this statement 
     and is asking the General Services Administration to step in 
     and help guide the District of Columbia Public School System 
     through school facilities repair and improvements. It is not 
     the intent of this amendment for Congress to take over the 
     maintenance of the school system, but rather to become a 
     partner with the school system to help repair and improve 
     school facilities. This is not a long-term arrangement, but 
     shall last no more than two years. It is also the expectation 
     of Congress that this partnership will make appropriate use 
     of the ``Superintendent's Task Force on the Education 
     Infrastructure for the 21st Century: Preliminary Facilities 
     Master Plan 2005 for the District of Columbia Public 
     Schools''. As the plan notes, ``this preliminary plan is a 
     first step in obtaining the District of Columbia's 
     assessment of its public school facilities, the children 
     served by them and a sense of their entitlement to high 
     quality services.''
       The report further states that ``While this preliminary 
     plan creates a framework for moving forward, it does not 
     complete the planning task. It suggests a considerable 
     departure from business as usual and requires the disciplined 
     coordination among all components of DCPS, other city 
     entities and community stakeholders that are currently 
     intervening to impact both student population trends and 
     quality of life in the city.'' It is the hope of Congress 
     that this report will be useful as a starting point to 
     complete the task at hand and that cooperation, innovation 
     and efficiency will prevail. Further, it is the hope of 
     Congress that such a revitalization of school facilities will 
     take hold and become a permanent fixture in the school system 
     of our Nation's capital.
     
[[Page H 11723]]


           Subtitle G--Department of Education ``D.C. Desk''

       Subtitle G of Title II of the bill requires the Department 
     of Education to establish a ``DC Desk'' to help coordinate 
     efforts by the District of Columbia school system to apply 
     and receive federal grants. The Director of the DC Desk shall 
     be appointed by the Secretary of Education and shall not be 
     paid more than a GS-15 rate of the General Schedule.
       The duties of the Director of the DC Desk shall include 
     coordinating with the Superintendent a comprehensive 
     technical assistance strategy, identifying federal grants for 
     which the District of Columbia public schools may be eligible 
     and identifying private and public resources that could be 
     made available to the District of Columbia Public School 
     System and public charter schools established under subtitle 
     B of this amendment. By providing this additional resource at 
     the federal level to the District of Columbia, it is expected 
     that greater resources will be infused into the District of 
     Columbia Public School System to provide new and innovative 
     approaches to learning.

                     Subtitle H--Residential School

       Subtitle H of Title II of the bill authorizes funds for the 
     planning and initial capital costs to develop a residential 
     school within the District of Columbia. Two million dollars 
     are authorized in FY 1996 to develop and initiate a 
     residential school program, of which no more than $100,000 
     may be used for planning purposes.
       In a July 13, 1995 reform plan submitted to Representative 
     Steve Gunderson, the president of the District of Columbia 
     Board of Education and the Superintendent of the District of 
     Columbia Public School System proposed allowing the District 
     of Columbia to establish a public residential school. This 
     amendment provides funds to the District to establish such a 
     school. The District of Columbia Public School System has 
     indicated that it intends for such a school to be designed 
     for highly disruptive or troubled youth and this is my 
     expectation.
       Several school systems have public residential schools 
     operating. Chicago is experimenting with the idea in a public 
     housing complex. As the Washington Times reported: ``For 
     centuries, the children of the rich have been sent to 
     boarding schools in search of a tightly controlled 
     educational environment . . . Now in Chicago, children of the 
     not-so-well-to-do will soon get to try something similar.''
       By providing a residential school in the District of 
     Columbia, as has been done in Chicago, Texas, North Carolina 
     and several other jurisdictions, a new alternative will be 
     created for District of Columbia students to learn and 
     thrive. By offering a new opportunity for District of 
     Columbia residents and their children, D.C. children will 
     have another way to succeed in school and in their future.

            Subtitle I--Progress Reports and Accountability

       Subtitle I of Title II of the bill, requires that no later 
     than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the District of 
     Columbia Council must submit a report to Congress describing 
     actions the Council has taken to facilitate first-year 
     reforms within the District of Columbia Public School system. 
     In order to allow for local legislative discretion as well as 
     responsibility, this amendment does not include a number of 
     legislative components that would facilitate public school 
     reform in the District, including implementation of the 
     first-year reform agenda of the District of Columbia Public 
     School System. In response to this demonstration of respect 
     for the principle of Home Rule, it is the expectation of 
     Congress that the DC Council will act swiftly to enact such 
     legislation following the enactment of this Act by Congress.
       Subtitle I also requires that the Superintendent submit to 
     Congress, no later than August 1, 1996, a report regarding 
     the status of implementation of a far-reaching first-year 
     reform agenda. This agenda is based on the reform plan 
     submitted by the Superintendent and the president of the 
     Board of Education to Rep. Steve Gunderson on July 13, 1995, 
     ``Accelerating Education Reform in the District of Columbia: 
     Building on BESST.'' While ambitious, the agenda described in 
     this subtitle does not include every single item contained in 
     the July 13, 1995, reform plan, only those that are most 
     critical and of the highest priority. This year, Congress is 
     resisting the temptation to micromanage, abolish or replace 
     the institutions governing the DC Public School System this 
     year, on the expectation that comprehensive reform will be 
     implemented. Over the course of the next year Congress will 
     conduct appropriate oversight. When considering the FY 1997 
     budget for the District, Congress will evaluate the progress 
     of this implementation and decide whether to intervene more 
     directly to redesign the governance arrangement for public 
     education in the District.

                  Subtitle J--Low Income Scholarships

       Subtitle J of Title II of of the bill establishes a low-
     income scholarship program. Under the program, a non-profit 
     corporation is established to administer two kinds of 
     scholarships for District of Columbia residents: (1) tuition 
     scholarships; and (2) scholarships for after school 
     activities or the costs of transportation. The program is 
     part of a broader education reform package whose goal is to 
     expand the range of choices for low-income families and to 
     improve the quality of education in the District of Columbia. 
     Within this broader framework, existing private and 
     independent schools in the District and surrounding 
     jurisdictions are only one component.
       The tuition scholarships will cover the full costs of 
     tuition, up to $3,000, for students below the poverty level. 
     For students between 100 percent and 185 percent of the 
     poverty level, the scholarship will equal one half the costs 
     of tuition, up to $1500. Tuition scholarships may be used at 
     participating private schools in the District as well as 
     public or private schools in surrounding jurisdictions.
       The scholarships for after school activities or 
     transportation will cover the full costs of such activities, 
     up to $500. Eligible students are those whose family incomes 
     are no more than 185 percent of the poverty level. Such 
     scholarships are available for use within the District of 
     Columbia at either traditional public schools, public charter 
     schools as established under this legislation, or private 
     schools. Such scholarships are envisioned to be used, among 
     other things, for payment of the costs of after school 
     tutoring, rental of band instruments, the costs of summer 
     school, or the costs of traveling across town to attend a new 
     public charter school.
       The corporation established to administer the program is 
     directed to award, to the extent feasible, an equal number of 
     the two types of scholarships (i.e. tuition scholarships and 
     after school or transportation scholarships).
       A seven member Board of Directors will oversee the 
     operations of the nonprofit scholarship corporation. Six 
     members are to be appointed by the President from nominations 
     submitted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
     the Majority Leader of the Senate. One member will be 
     appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
       During hearings held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
     Investigations of the Economic and Educational Opportunities 
     Committee, testimony supporting the scholarship concept was 
     received from several sources. First, at the Subcommittee 
     hearing of June 27, 1995, Eenid Simmons, Director of the 
     Office of Policy for the Mayor of the District of Columbia, 
     spoke in favor of private school choice, though with 
     limitations. The Office of the Mayor has advocated means-
     testing for any choice program. This amendment recognizes the 
     wisdom of such a provision, and accordingly has made the 
     scholarships available to those families with incomes at 
     or below 185 percent of the poverty level.
       Second, at the same Subcommittee hearing, Otis Troupe, the 
     Chairman of the Vouchers Committee of the Education First 
     Coalition, strongly endorsed private school choice as a means 
     of improving the education of District children, though he 
     endorsed a different mechanism than that contained in this 
     amendment. He noted:
       ``I am a particularly enthusiastic proponent of voucher-
     supported public education. . . . To my mind, a program of 
     voucher-supported fully accredited alternative schools will 
     very quickly bring a flexibility of choice to the sterile 
     landscape of `non-options' that are currently offered to 
     parents of DC school children. . . . Once operational, 
     vouchers would immediately and drastically expand the choices 
     available to participating parents. Immediately, children in 
     the vouchers program would experience a drastically expanded 
     range of choice [sic] for schools and academic programs.''
       Because of the concerns of some in the District that a 
     voucher system would remove local public funds and send them 
     to private schools, such an approach is not contained in this 
     amendment. The concept of permitting greater choice among all 
     schools for low-income families who cannot afford choice at 
     present, however, is maintained in this amendment.
       Third, the Education and Libraries Committee of the 
     District of Columbia Council responsible for education 
     legislation unanimously (5-0) ``embraced,'' in an official 
     committee report dated July 21, 1995, a Federally-funded 
     scholarship program. It is this approach that is embodied in 
     this subtitle.
       Fundamental to the concept of this scholarship program is 
     the maximization of equality of opportunity for low income 
     families. The tuition scholarships will provide such families 
     with the same kinds of choices--including private schools in 
     the District as well as public or private schools in 
     surrounding jurisdictions--that higher income families 
     already have available. The after school activities and 
     transportation scholarships are similarly targeted toward low 
     income families.
       Some establishment clause concerns have been expressed 
     regarding whether this amendment provides direct Federal 
     assistance to sectarian schools. It does not, however, 
     provide direct Federal assistance to any participating 
     schools. Rather, the assistance is to the student. The intent 
     of section 2553(c) of the bill is to make clear that the 
     students are the primary beneficiaries of the scholarships, 
     and not the schools. This amendment envisions no 
     discrimination for or against private schools on the basis of 
     religion in the operation of this program, but instead 
     neutrality.
       Section 2557(a)(1) of the bill prohibits independent and 
     private schools from discriminating on the basis of a 
     student's disabilities if the school is equipped to provide 
     an appropriate education. This part of section 2557(a)(1) is 
     intended to reflect current law 

[[Page H 11724]]

     requirements under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973 (29 USC 794).
       The low-income scholarship program was carefully designed 
     to satisfy Constitutional requirements under the First 
     Amendment. Over the past 12 years, the U.S. Supreme Court 
     consistently has upheld programs that provide assistance 
     for students who attend private schools. In Mueller v. 
     Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), the Court upheld Minnesota's 
     income tax credits for educational expenses, most of which 
     were incurred in religious schools. In Witters v. 
     Department of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986), 
     a program paying for a blind student to pursue training 
     for the ministry at a religious seminary was upheld. In 
     Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 113 S. Ct. 
     2462 (1993), the Court sustained the use of funds under 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to pay an 
     interpreter for a deaf child attending a Catholic High 
     School.
       In these cases, the Court established that such assistance 
     is permissible if (1) the choice where to use assistance is 
     made by parents of students, not the government; (2) the 
     program does not create a financial incentive to choose 
     private schools; and (3) it does not involve the government 
     in the school's affairs.
       The proposed scholarship program fulfills these criteria. 
     Like the G.I. Bill and federal daycare assistance, the choice 
     of where funds are expended is made not by the government but 
     by the scholarship recipients. Because the tuition 
     scholarships amount only to the cost of tuition or some 
     lesser amount, the program does not create a financial 
     incentive to choose private schools. Scholarships are also 
     available to pay costs of supplemental services for public 
     school students, who already receive a free education. 
     Moreover, the program involves only those regulations 
     necessary to ensure that reasonable educational objectives 
     are met, and does not create entanglement between the 
     government and religious schools.
       The scholarship program does not impermissibly establish 
     religion, but instead serves to expand educational 
     opportunities for children who desperately need them.

                 Subtitle K--Partnerships With Business

       Within the context of limited public resources and an ever 
     increasing demand for additional and more effective 
     services--Subtitle K of Title II is intended to facilitate a 
     process and develop an infrastructure under which private 
     sector contributions are effectively leveraged to bring about 
     positive change in the community.
       The centerpiece of this Subtitle is the establishment of 
     the District Education and Learning Technologies Advancement 
     (DELTA) Council. The DELTA council will bring together 
     representatives of business, community leaders, and others 
     willing to contribute time, energy and resources to carry out 
     a variety of activities related to education, training and 
     employment within the District of Columbia.
       The DELTA Council, (established by a non-profit corporation 
     selected by the Superintendent of DC schools), has many 
     important functions, including coordinating donations from 
     the private sector so that they are used in a comprehensive 
     and effective manner with full accountability. It is expected 
     that the corporation, through the DELTA council, will not 
     only meet, but surpass, the goals set forth in the 
     legislation to match the Federal grant amount at an 
     increasing rate (up to 5:1) over the three year authorizing 
     period. It is intended that the DELTA council will work with 
     the General Services Administration in the coordination of 
     donated services related to the repair and improvement of 
     schools.
       The integration of up-to-the minute educational technology 
     into an inner-city school curriculum has shown impressive 
     results. A recent article in the National Journal focused on 
     the impact such an initiative had on schools in Union City, 
     N.J.:
       ``Bell Atlantic Corp., the Philadelphia-based regional Bell 
     operating company, provided computers and wired the 
     classrooms and homes of students, teachers and administrators 
     to join them all in an electronic network. It then connected 
     the network to the Internet and a host of multi-media 
     education programs. `We initiated the project to test the 
     technology--which works'; John G. Grady, the manager of Bell 
     Atlantic's Video Service, explained `But we were surprised in 
     a wonderful way with the educational outcomes.' Truancy and 
     dropouts plummeted; test scores soared. All the schools in 
     the district raised their levels of attendance and student 
     achievement.''
       Under this legislation, the DELTA council, in conjunction 
     with the Superintendent, students, parents and teachers will 
     establish and implement strategies to ensure access to state-
     of-the-art educational technology. This process will begin 
     with a comprehensive technology assessment which, to the 
     extent possible, shall be done pro bono by a qualified 
     private sector firm. Based on this assessment, the DELTA 
     council will facilitate the development of a short-term 
     technology plan to be carried out in conjunction with the 
     schools, students, parents and teachers.
       It is recognized that computers, hardware, software and 
     access to emerging technologies do not, by themselves, ensure 
     success. In fact, they are worthless if they are not utilized 
     effectively and constructively. As such, teachers need to be 
     knowledgeable both on how to use these technologies as well 
     as how to teach such technology and the applications of such 
     technology.
       Under this legislation this vital link is established 
     through the creation of a Professional Development Program 
     for Teachers and Administrators. This program will being 
     together teachers, school administrators and universities 
     within the District of Columbia in order to provide 
     professional development for teachers. This training will 
     include private sector training of teachers in the use, 
     application, and operation of state-of-the-art technology in 
     education. This program will also provide training for school 
     principals and other school administrators in effective 
     private sector management practices.
       The unemployment rate for 18-25 year olds in the District 
     of Columbia is simply too high. There needs to be an 
     effective effort, beyond school reform, to assist these 
     individuals in gaining the skills necessary to obtain and 
     retain employment. Subtitle K provides for the District of 
     Employment and Learning Center, ``DEAL Center''. The center 
     will provide the district with a regional institute to 
     provide job training and employment assistance for these 
     individuals. The basic premise behind this center is that one 
     of the most effective approaches to employment programs is 
     the combination of on-the-job and classroom training. As 
     such, the center will focus on job placement, including 
     temporary work assignments, combined with training 
     opportunities. This training may be supported with needs-
     based payments in order to make training a viable option for 
     those individuals who may otherwise not be able to afford the 
     time to participate in such a program.
       The center will use funds from a variety of sources (beyond 
     what is made available under this section), including funds 
     leveraged through the private sector by the DELTA council and 
     through partnerships with other governmental agencies and 
     appropriate federal employment and training programs.
       It is recognized that there are currently efforts in this 
     Congress aimed at streamlining the multitude of Federal job 
     training and employment programs and providing a simpler 
     framework for state and local implementation of such federal 
     program. This subtitle encourages such reforms to be started 
     within the District by the Mayor as soon as possible and 
     further supports full accountability for these funds. It is 
     further encouraged that the Mayor and other local officials 
     coordinate the design and implementation of such reforms with 
     the efforts of the DELTA council and with the efforts of the 
     DEAL Center.
       It is also expected that initiatives will be carried out 
     with District of Columbia Public School System and interested 
     public charter schools at the secondary level to facilitate 
     the integration of rigorous academic studies with workforce 
     preparation programs. In particular, it is the intent of this 
     amendment to promote the expansion and quality of current 
     high school career academy programs as established in certain 
     District of Columbia schools.
       This amendment also recognize the value of implementing 
     nationally-proven programs. One such example is the Jobs for 
     America's Graduates (JAG) program. According to the 1994 
     Annual Report issued by JAG, the program has benefited over 
     175,000 youth people in 22 different states and 400 
     communities. Over 90 percent of them have successfully 
     completed high school and over 80 percent, at the end of nine 
     months after leaving school are either on the job, in the 
     military or enrolled in postsecondary education or training.
       This amendment provides funding for a Jobs for D.C. 
     Graduates Program modeled after the JAG program and 
     consistent with Jobs for America's Graduates, Inc. This 
     program would assist schools in workforce preparation 
     initiatives. Specifically, these initiatives assist at-risk 
     and disadvantaged youth in graduating from high school and in 
     finding and maintaining quality jobs thereafter. It is 
     expected that FY 1996 funding would serve at least half of 
     all 12th grade students and funding authorized in future 
     years would include all interested 12th grade students.

      Subtitle L--Parent Attendance at Parent-Teacher Conferences

       Subtitle L of Title II of the bill authorizes the Mayor to 
     condition welfare benefits on parent attendance and 
     participation in parent-teacher conferences once every 90 
     days. The Mayor must submit to the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services a plan for implementation of such a program. 
     The plan must state how the Mayor plans to administer the 
     program, conduct evaluations of the program, monitor the 
     participation of parents, withhold and reinstate benefits, 
     and long-term plans for the program. Beginning October 1, 
     1996, the District of Columbia is required to annually submit 
     a report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and 
     Congress on the progress and report of this program.
       The idea for such a program arose at one of the many 
     consensus meetings I held to develop this comprehensive 
     reform package. It was suggested by teachers who emphasized 
     the need to ensure greater parent involvement. Further, it is 
     consistent with the overall philosophy of the reforms 
     proposed by District of Columbia school officials. In a July 
     13, 1995 letter to Representative Steve Gunderson, Mrs. Wilma 
     Harvery, president of the District of Columbia Board of 
     Education, and Franklin Smith, Superintendent of the District 
     of Columbia Public Schools, cited the value of parent 
     involvement in the success of both schools and students. 
     ``Parent and community involvement are critical to 

[[Page H 11725]]

     student and school success . . . Research show parent 
     involvement is a crucial component in school success.''
       The Carnegie Corporation issued a report in June 1989 
     entitled ``Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 
     21st Century''. The report states the need to reengage 
     families in the education of our children and to have them 
     become more actively involved in the school. ``Reversing the 
     downward slide in parent involvement and closing the gulf 
     between parents and school staff with mutual trust and 
     respect are crucial for the successful education of 
     adolescents.'' It is intended that this subtitle on parental 
     involvement will re-engage parents to become actively 
     involved in the education of their children.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee 
on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would plead with my colleagues to 
listen to only one special interest group today, and that is the 
special interest group that is never heard. That special interest group 
is the children's special interest group. That special interest group 
is the children's special interest group of low-income families.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to please not listen to any of the 
others. We had that kind of consensus, until all of the sudden special 
interest groups decided that we should forget about the children. Let 
us only think in terms of whatever it is that we think is important, 
and I am asking my colleagues to think about children.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also asking Members to think about the amount of 
time that was put into developing this in a cooperative fashion. The 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] had 20 people from all segments 
of the District of Columbia society come and testify. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] has gone all over this community.
  Mr. Chairman, we had a town meeting downtown, and I closed the town 
meeting, my part of the town meeting, by saying that it is my hope that 
as adults we will think as adults and not act like children. My fear is 
that we will act like children and children will suffer.
  We are always talking about demonstration projects around here. Mr. 
Chairman, here is a golden opportunity to see a demonstration project 
firsthand right here. We owe it to the community. We owe it to the 
children. We can watch it right here in the Nation's Capital.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage Members to understand I too have 
always opposed vouchers. I oppose vouchers now. We are not talking 
about vouchers. What we are talking about is a scholarship. Not to the 
wealthy. We are talking about a scholarship to low-income youngsters 
who cannot benefit from any other program that is presently out there. 
We are talking about what it is we can do to help parents become the 
first and most important teacher a child will ever have. That is what 
this is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, let us speak for the children today. Let us not pay any 
attention to any other special interest group; just the children. The 
children of the District of Columbia and the parents of District of 
Columbia children with low-income. Mr. Chairman, I plead with Members 
to ignore all other special interest groups.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gunderson 
amendment.
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gunderson 
amendment. I do so with a great deal of respect for the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin who has spent countless hours on the most 
laudable of goals--improving educational opportunities for thousands of 
children in the District of Columbia. I know that he has consulted, 
cajoled, and compromised with District officials, and others intimately 
involved with this effort, to develop a consensus education reform 
package that could move the District public schools toward a world 
class education system.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the Gunderson plan, no matter how 
laudable the effort, simply does not belong on this appropriations 
bill. This amendment is a 142-page bill that authorizes some $100 
million over 5 years for a variety of initiatives relating to the 
District of Columbia public schools. This amendment does not 
appropriate one additional dime to the District of Columbia. This is a 
proposal that should have been considered by the Government Reform 
Committee and the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. 
Those are the committees that have jurisdiction over this matter, not 
the Appropriations Committee.
  Attaching this legislative proposal to this bill will most certainly 
result in a protracted conference with the Senate over this matter, and 
will most certainly result in a delay in getting critically needed 
funds to the District of Columbia.
  Moreover, we cannot escape the fact that there is a deep disagreement 
over the substance and underlying philosophy of this proposal. It is 
deeply flawed in several respects. First, more than 40 percent of the 
new authorizations in the bill--some $42 million--is for so-called low-
income scholarships. These funds would not be spent improving the 
quality of the District public schools--the stated intent of the 
Gunderson plan.
  Rather, almost half of the additional funding in the measure would be 
spent to provide Federal funds for scholarships to low-income District 
students to attend private and religious schools in the District and 
the suburbs. Call it what you will, this is no different than a private 
school voucher plan. The Secretary of Education who also believes that 
it is a private school voucher plan says that ``This aspect of the 
draft act is highly objectionable as a matter of good public policy.''
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the Gunderson amendment with its 
provisions to divert limited Federal resources to private and religious 
schools, with little or no public accountability for how the funds 
would be used. The proposal contains virtually no requirements that 
schools receiving these vouchers be accountable to the public for the 
type or quality of education they provide. There are no requirements 
governing quality of curriculum or teaching.

  Moreover, this program is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has 
consistently struck down aid programs that constitute public subsidies 
of religious schools.
  Mr. Chairman, the Gunderson plan would also authorize the creation of 
so-called charter schools in the District of Columbia -- a concept that 
the District Board of Education has already addressed. I have to ask 
the question why Congress must step in to tell the District school 
board to do what it already has the power and authority to do.
  Of course, the answer is that this is all about the Republican 
ideology to promote privatization. There is a political agenda here to 
permit private schools to receive public education funds--pure and 
simple. The Gunderson plan would allow almost anyone to set up a 
taxpayer-funded charter school with minimal requirements. The Gunderson 
plan would simply drain resources from District public schools to these 
new charter schools, increasing the financial burden on a school system 
already fighting near collapse.
  Under Gunderson, charter schools would operate independently--free of 
any meaningful requirements to ensure academic standards, preserve 
students' civil rights, or protect school employee rights. Charter 
schools would not be required to meet standards to ensure that teachers 
are qualified to teach or even have a minimal level of education. 
Charter schools would be outside the protections and rights of 
collective bargaining agreements between the public school system and 
employee unions. Charter schools would be outside standards that apply 
to other schools regarding health, safety, and other measures that 
affect the well-being of pupils and staff.
  Mr. Chairman, these provisions strike at the heart of public 
education. This plan does not promote meaningful educational reform in 
the District of Columbia's public schools. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] the ranking member of the Committee 

[[Page H 11726]]

on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Gunderson amendment 
because it mandates a voucher program to finance the education of 
students from the District of Columbia in private and religious 
institutions. These vouchers could be used not only in private schools 
in the District of Columbia, but in surrounding jurisdictions as well. 
Mr. Chairman, a voucher by any other name is still a voucher.
  As a preliminary matter, this provision violates home rule. The 
citizens of this great city should not be blackmailed by Congress into 
measures detrimental to the well-being of their schoolchildren simply 
because we hold power over the District's purse. The elected leaders of 
this city have not asked us to impose a program on its school system 
that strikes at the heart of public education.
  The voucher provisions of the Gunderson amendment are contrary to the 
cause of school reform and may be unconstitutional. Furthermore, they 
do not promote overall improvement of education for all children, 
rather they drain much needed resources from underfunded public 
schools. I never thought I would see the day that this Congress would 
allow Federal funds to be diverted to schools which will be free to 
discriminate against students, including the disabled, even in their 
admissions policies.
  Mr. Chairman, in my committee we have struggled to examine the 
consequences of vouchers. A little over a week ago, we conducted a 
field hearing in Milwaukee, WI, in a bipartisan attempt to assess what 
lessons a voucher program there held for national education policy. The 
answers are far from clear, and there is no sound evaluation data from 
which we can draw reliable conclusions.
  The Gunderson proposal does not address those questions, but it does 
raise many others. How would District schools benefit from diverting 
funds to Montgomery County and Fairfax County schools? I do not dispute 
the obvious fact that some individual students may profit, but how in 
the world would that improve educational quality in the District for 
those not privileged to be accepted by private schools in neighboring 
States?

  Mr. Chairman, the Congress has no right to establish a laboratory for 
radical experiments in the District of Columbia that would treat its 
children as guinea pigs. We would not impose the same ridiculous 
conditions on free citizens of any other jurisdiction. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Gunderson amendment.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Davis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia.
  (Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, the city schools are in crisis, and I want 
to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin for working with many myriad 
of business and civics groups to bring this proposal before the House 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, the city schools are in crisis. Less than 43 percent of 
eligible students are graduating from high school, and the students who 
graduate from high school, who are lucky enough to receive that 
diploma, in many cases are unable to go forward with a college 
education or vocational education or even to find jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, what I have heard from the other side of the aisle is 
no proposals, no solution. If money were the answer, we would have 
solved this problem a long time ago. Over $9,000 per student, higher 
than any State in the United States, is the average that the city is 
spending on students today. But pouring money into this is not by 
itself the solution, although this proposal gives more money to the 
city than they currently get today. More money for Even Start; charter 
schools, bringing entrepreneurial modes into this.
  We have heard a lot of talk about vouchers and opposition to 
scholarships. The city already does this. They do it under the ADA 
proposals for handicapped students today. Millions of dollars are going 
into private schools from the city, some of them out in Fairfax County. 
Accotink Academy, the School for Contemporary Education, giving people 
who qualify, under those laws passed by Congress, an opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, why cannot we extend this to the poor in the city as 
well, instead of condemning them to an educational system which has 
given them nothing but failure to date. We have a higher responsibility 
in this body than to just turn our heads.
  This has been worked very closely with local citizen groups, with the 
local business community, to try to bring as much of a consensus that 
we ever can to these very difficult problems in the District of 
Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a great start for the students in the 
city who are not hurt in this debate. The interest groups who are 
afraid of some kind of precedent are opposed, and some of the unions 
are opposed, but the students are the ones that really should be our 
interest.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year the Republican majority 
approved cuts of $3.5 billion from discretionary education programs, 
including over a billion dollars in title I. The District of Columbia 
will share in those reductions. The harmful effect of those cuts will 
far outweigh any benefit, potentially, that may accrue to the District 
under the Gunderson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my fundamental objection is that this amendment should 
not be here on this bill in the first place. We are 1 month into the 
beginning of the fiscal year. Ninety-two percent of the Federal budget 
is still being held up on the appropriated side of the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, it is because amendments like this are being attached. 
This is a legislative issue. It ought to be dealt with by the 
legislative committee. It is a 144-page add-on which our committee has 
had absolutely no hearings on and which we should not be passing on 
here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that most Members will vote for or against the 
amendment. I am profoundly opposed to this amendment. Not only because 
it should not be on the appropriation bill, but also because I think it 
has profound national implications as well. But even if I am the only 
one, as I was yesterday, I am going to vote ``present'' when the vote 
comes on this bill to simply indicate my objection to the constant 
practice of bringing legislative items to this bill that should not be 
here.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not elected to be a city councilman for the 
District of Columbia. I was not elected by District residents in order 
to decide what their education rules are going to be. If they do not 
like what the Congress does here today, they cannot vote against us.

                              {time}  1315

  That breaks the principle of accountability. It indeed means taxation 
without representation. It means the establishment of policy without 
representation. That, in my view, means that this amendment constitutes 
an illegitimate legislative act. That is why I am going to vote 
``present'' on these and all other legislative items, because we have 
no business in this forum, in this committee, voting on this issue.
  If the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] likes the idea, 
then, fine, do your duty and bring it out of your committee. That is 
the committee of jurisdiction.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, pointing out that there are no mandates 
in this bill on D.C. schools, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Walsh], the chairman of the D.C. Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson], my good friend and distinguished colleague, and I rise in 
support of his amendment and offer him my deep gratitude for the work 
that he has done.
  Mr. Chairman, we did, in fact, have hearings in our subcommittee 
regarding education where we discussed the issues with parents, 
students, teachers, school board members and other interested parties. 
The schools and the kids 

[[Page H 11727]]

need help, Mr. Chairman. Our subcommittee received many requests to 
make changes in the District's public schools. We considered cutting 
the pay of school board members. We considered cutting their staff. We 
considered forcing other changes. But we held back.
  The work of the control board and the work that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] has done I think, will have a dramatic and 
positive effect in the very near future on the quality of education in 
the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, this vote is for the kids of this city. Wealthy 
families in Washington, DC, have had, and continue to have, the choice, 
the opportunity, to send their kids to private schools or public 
schools. What we are suggesting is that we are in favor of middle-class 
families and poor families having those same choices.
  We believe that there is no greater gift that parents can give their 
children than a quality education. That should not be just for wealthy 
families, Mr. Chairman. That should be for poor families, middle-class 
families and all families in the District of Columbia. This goes a very 
short way in helping that to happen. I am hopeful that success will 
breed success and others will contribute to this scholarship program.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
beautiful State of Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, this is a critical critical issue that 
has been at great debate for 200 years in this country. Religious 
institutions, including schools, have an absolute, unhampered, 
unbroken, historic tradition, constitutionally protected right to 
practice religion with no government restraints.
  The public, on the other hand, has an absolute right to require, 
through government, accountability and responsibility from any 
institution that takes its money. Therefore, 200 and plus years ago, 
the Founders said, thus, no government public money shall go to aid any 
particular religion or religion generally. They were trying to avoid 
the entanglement of mandates and regulations from this body or any 
government body over religious institutions. That is why we oppose 
vouchers by any name, whether you call them scholarships or parochial 
aid.
  Understand, my colleagues, this money just does not go to the 
District of Columbia. It goes to Montgomery County, Prince George's 
County, Arlington County, Fairfax County, and Alexandria County.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague in 
arms, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Gunderson amendment which would drastically improve the schools in our 
Nation's Capitol.
  Early this year, after Congressman Gunderson was chosen to lead the 
D.C. school reform effort, he asked me if I would help. For many years, 
my wife and I have helped get money and equipment to help build and 
equip hospitals, orphanages, and fire departments all over the world. 
In our hometown, we helped found, fund, and build a day care center for 
welfare mothers, so when the gentleman from Wisconsin called on me, I 
was excited to have the opportunity to help.
  Approaching businesses for donations is something I have done all my 
life and so I understand the concept of lining up suppliers of 
construction materials. Next I approached local construction firms to 
see if they would assist in the effort. Their reaction was positive but 
they warned me that they had been involved before and that soon after 
the repairs had been completed, the repaired schools had been 
vandalized. They also advised me that the many regulations affecting 
construction in the District of Columbia made their efforts more 
difficult because of wasting money. The Davis-Bacon Act and the Fair 
Labor Standards Act restrictions on volunteers topped the list. 
Unfortunately, due to the opposition of Delegate Norton and others, the 
Gunderson amendment does not include these waivers, which will be a 
disincentive to participation by the local construction industry.
  Raynard Jackson, an aggressive young Republican, offered to line up 
volunteers and suggested getting additional volunteers from local 
industrial schools to help in the areas for which they were being 
trained such as carpentry, plumbing and electrical work. This would 
help provide on-the-job training for these young people and help them 
gain skills for the future. This effort is also in jeopardy because the 
waiver on volunteers was not included.
  Although the opposition to these waivers has made the job of 
repairing D.C. schools more difficult, I am still willing to help and I 
still support the Gunderson amendment. That is really saying something, 
because my colleagues know how much I oppose the Davis-Bacon Act. 
Without being critical, I would offer an old adage to the D.C. Delegate 
and other leaders; ``Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.'' Many of us 
care about the District of Columbia and want to help. Do not throw 
roadblocks in our way. Let us not let partisanship jeopardize the 
future of D.C.'s school children. Let us not waste this opportunity. 
Support the Gunderson amendment.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Sawyer].
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in admiration of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] and in opposition to his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], I am 
a strong supporter of reforming public education in the district and 
find a number of ideas contained in his bill to be promising and 
worthwhile. But I oppose this amendment's language that would authorize 
use of Federal taxpayer funds to pay for private school vouchers or 
scholarships or whatever it is that we choose to call them.
  I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson]. He has met tirelessly with representatives of the community 
and those with a stake in the schools. Unfortunately, it is not enough 
simply to have meetings.
  We have before us today an amendment that would create a very broad-
based experiment in the lives of children. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Gunderson] has called this the best compromise we can achieve, and 
yet the committee of jurisdiction has not held one hearing on this 
detailed plan, much less a markup or any working compromise among 
Members that might have achieved real consensus.
  My greatest concern is that there is little or no public 
accountability on how these dollars would be used. This amendment fails 
even to define what a school is for the experimental purposes under 
this plan and who can be a teacher in one of those experimental 
schools. There are provisions for a report to Congress, but nothing to 
ensure that the scholarship schools raise the achievement of students, 
nothing to ensure that we are not using Federal money to transfer 
students from one environment to another, with no real benefit to the 
kids.
  At the same time, there is no real provision in this bill that 
provides for an effective, unbiased, comprehensive, scientific 
evaluation of the program that would give us an accurate picture of any 
positive or negative results as the plan proceeds.
  For the reasons I have just outlined and a thousand questions unasked 
and unanswered, the dollars provided for in this amendment are highly 
questionable as a matter of good public policy. Maybe that is too 
strong. Maybe it is just uncertain as to whether it is sound public 
policy.
  If we are to truly respect the long-standing tradition of this body 
to conduct careful deliberation, then I urge Members to vote ``no'' on 
this amendment so the committee with jurisdiction in matters of 
education may undertake even the most basic work and study that this 
significant change in policy requires.
  A school is eligible to receive Federal voucher funds if it enrolls 
25 or more students and can produce a financial statement. If it is a 
newly created school, it needs to produce 10 letters of support from 
the community. This is not a responsible reform that will benefit 
children. It is a business opportunity that has no way of guaranteeing 
a better schooling for the children involved. It is an invitation for 

[[Page H 11728]]

fraud and misuse of funds. There are provisions in this amendment for a 
report to the Congress, but nothing to ensure that the scholarship 
schools raise the achievement of the students--nothing to ensure that 
we are not merely using Federal money to transfer students from one 
environment to another with no real benefit to the child.
  At the same time there is no provision in this bill that provides for 
an effective, unbiased, and comprehensive scientific evaluation of the 
program that would give us an accurate picture of any positive or 
negative results. The evaluation component of this amendment is so 
minimal, and only applicable after 4 years, that it will not tell us 
anything reliable. In an experiment such as this we need to be able to 
discover what is working, what is not working, what problems have come 
up--foreseen and unforeseen. We need information about how the children 
did in their previous schools, what changes in behavior occur, the list 
goes on and on. The simple statement that an evaluation should be done 
after 4 years, with only a few specifications on what should be 
evaluated, will not produce the detailed results we need to hold this 
program accountable.
  This amendment is also a lesson in illusions. There are fewer than 10 
schools already operating in the District of Columbia that have tuition 
at or below the voucher level. In an informal survey, my staff found 
only a handful of slots open for students to enroll in these schools. 
These schools also seem to include many hidden costs, fees, and no 
provisions for transportation. The Speaker offered to fully fund this 
program for low-income students in the District, but there are not 
nearly enough openings in private schools in the surrounding areas to 
accommodate all of those children. There are instances where public 
schools in the surrounding areas will take students from outside their 
own district, but those instances are rare and much more costly than 
the voucher provides. Why then, are we tying up these millions of 
Federal taxpayer dollars for this program when they could be used to 
improve the public schools that serve all children in the District?
  There are also no provisions in this bill to assure that students who 
want to participate in this program will be protected by civil rights 
laws once they are in these private schools. There are no provisions to 
provide for the disabled students, who often carry with them the need 
for costly special services. These same services are required by law to 
be provided by the public schools.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon], also a member of our committee.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Gunderson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I was one of the Members who 
went to Milwaukee to see what the people in Milwaukee had to say about 
their school voucher program. One of the conclusions that I could not 
help but make there is that the kids, the moms, the dads in the program 
love it. They think it is wonderful. The academics, the school 
education officials who are involved with the unions, they do not like 
it.
  I remember one young lady by the name of Yolanda who came up to me, 
she was in the audience, and told me about how much this program has 
impacted her and about how she has gone from a grade point average of 
1.4 to 4.0 and how she thought we needed to expand the program in 
Milwaukee and indeed expand it all over the country.
  That is what my good friend from Wisconsin is trying to do here in 
this bill, to do something for these kids.
  The opponents of this amendment have nothing to offer. I feel that we 
should all support this amendment. It is a good amendment.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Gunderson], my colleague on the committee, for his genuine concern 
and dedication to education. But even with that I must oppose his 
amendment. Major authorizing legislation like this should be given 
careful consideration in a separate bill and obviously should not be 
attached as an amendment to an appropriations bill. It should go 
through the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities that I 
serve on with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. I believe 
that the proposal should go through that committee and have full 
hearings.
  In fact, the Gunderson amendment could actually be instituted by the 
local community without having to have the structure coming through 
this Congress. They can create their own programs that they want to, 
and it does not have to be through the U.S. Treasury. They could do 
that if they wanted to, without this Congress telling them. Let the 
local people make the decision, whether it be in my district or here in 
D.C.
  The Gunderson amendment could have dramatic effect because of the 
private school issue and the Constitution. But let me also say that the 
concern I have is it may be cherry-picking or picking good students out 
of the D.C. school district and only to go to certain other school 
districts. I am concerned because we need those children in the public 
schools.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], my friend, my classmate and my colleague.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Gunderson] for offering this amendment. This is our chance to help 
the students in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, my daughter taught for a year in the District of 
Columbia. I want to tell you, the schools are not doing very well. We 
are losing young people year after year after year. If I were a parent 
and had children in the District of Columbia schools, I would want this 
bill so badly, and no one in this body should oppose this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, how many Members of this Congress, Republican and 
Democrat, who live in this region have their children in the District 
of Columbia schools? The answer is probably few or maybe none.
  I commend the Speaker. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson]. If this bill goes down, you will lose children. To vote 
against the Gunderson amendment is to vote against the young men and 
boys and girls in this school, in this District of Columia.
  None of you would send your kids to these schools. None of you would 
send your kids to these schools.
  This is a good bill. The Gunderson amendment is a good amendment. The 
Speaker should be commended. It will disgrace this body if this 
amendment fails.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment that 
allows the use of Federal funds in education for the so-called low-
income scholarships. This proposal will establish a voucher program, 
will only serve to worsen the situation that my colleague from Virginia 
pointed out, because the vast majority of students will be left behind 
in a school system with even less resources than they have now.
  This amendment will not increase parental choice. In a voucher 
program, the parents do not have the choice. The private schools have 
the choice. They will choose the students already in their schools 
first and then the students who excel in academics next.
  In the hearing in Milwaukee to which there was reference, we found 
that the vast majority of students will be left behind in a school 
system with less funding than could have been available had they not 
had the voucher program.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will do nothing to improve the situation 
in the Washington, DC, public school system. I urge my colleagues to 
join the Washington, DC, residents themselves who have already spoken 
in opposition to this idea in a referendum and reject this amendment.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], also a member of our committee.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his tremendous initiative and leadership in this area.
  I am very glad to follow the gentleman from Virginia. I have a lot of 
respect for him. A couple of weeks ago we were both in Milwaukee for a 
field 

[[Page H 11729]]

hearing of the Opportunities Committee. We looked at that school 
system's implementation of school choice for low-income families.
  What did we hear? The parents and families participating in that 
program have a high degree of satisfaction with the program, that 
school choice is increasing parental involvement in public education, 
and that is what the Gunderson amendment is all about. It is about 
shifting the educational paradigm, changing focus from providers of 
education to consumers of education. This is not about Republican or 
Democrat, conservative or liberal. It is about empowering low-income 
families and giving low-income parents the same choice that more 
affluent parents have to provide educational opportunity for their 
children.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield on-half minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, in the hearing in Milwaukee we did hear 
great satisfaction for those who were in the program, but the fact is 
we did not hear from those who were left behind with fewer resources.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], for a well-intended attempt 
to help D.C. schools. But the message I bring is that the people who 
live in the District know how their youngsters should be educated.
  We have said in this Congress that this Congress is tired of 
micromanaging and passing down things to States. Use that same rule of 
thumb in dealing with the D.C. school system.
  I am sure each of us has some well-intended desires, but it took 
under, President Bush's administration, 2 years to even study, to get 
to Education 2000. Now we are going to do this on an appropriations 
bill.
  It is very, very inadequate planning in education. This is a crucial 
thing, the education of the youngsters in the District of Columbia.
  I want to let this Congress know that the youngsters in the District 
of Columbia have every right to a good education that is well thought 
out and well constructed and a systematic approach leading to 
education. No one-shot-overnight deal for them is going to work.
  So be sure, before you vote for anything, to vote against this 
amendment. No matter how well intended it is, it is a very dangerous 
initiative.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the commitment of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin to education. I am a bit shocked that he 
has allowed himself to be used to make this kind of presentation.
  What the American people fear most is Federal interference in 
education. Here is a situation where the children of the District of 
Columbia will be made guinea pigs of the radical right. You will have a 
private plantation system developed where without any kind of 
accountability, experimentation will be run out of the Speaker's 
office. It is the worst kind of situation where Federal money is going 
to be used in a very partisan way to set some precedents that then will 
be used for the rest of the country.
  The precedent with respect to vouchers has been discussed a great 
deal. We have discussed vouchers. We have gone through that. The 
American people rejected vouchers for private schools. To come through 
the back door in this way, using the power of the Speaker's office and 
holding out carrots for a District which is desperate for funds, is the 
wrong way to do it. The American people will not tolerate it.
  I hope we will withdraw this amendment.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker remaining.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield the balance of my 
time to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is recognized 
for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all I am a little 
disappointed at some of how the D.C. bill has evolved, because last 
year when we were in the minority and we were approached about helping 
at a point where it would have been impossible for the Democrats to get 
votes for the District of Columbia appropriations bill, a number of us 
did everything we could to be helpful and provided the margin of 
passage. We did it because we thought this was our National Capital, 
and we had an obligation to do it.
  But I am even more disappointed in the consistent refusal of Members, 
who ought to know better, to deal directly with the problems of 
children in terrible schools. Now, this is an article from yesterday's 
Washington Post: ``D.C. school in chaos, Teachers' Union says; reports 
of violence cause fear at Ballou; officials say principal is in 
control.''
  This is a quote:

       Members of the Washington Teachers' Union complained 
     yesterday that Ballou Senior High School, in Southeast 
     Washington, is so out of control that some teachers and 
     students have been staying home. ``There have been robberies 
     at the school, assaults, cherry bombs,'' union 
     president Barbara Bullock said. ``When we saw the chaos, 
     we had to speak out. Teachers are afraid for themselves 
     and the students.'' She said some teachers have called the 
     union and said. ``They are stressed out. You can't teach 
     with all that hell-raising going on outside in the hall.'' 
     Patricia Laster, an English teacher, said there is 
     ``constant traffic in the halls, there is open smoking of 
     marijuana. Some of the students can be absolutely 
     incorrigible. there have been threats made on teachers. 
     Because of scheduling mix-ups, she said, some students 
     still do not have class assignments and simply roam the 
     halls.

  Now, I would say to my friends, how long are you going to abandon the 
children? How long is the next unionized bureaucrat going to matter 
more than the child? How long is the next political support from the 
local teachers' union or political support from the local bureaucrats 
going to matter more than the children?
  Somebody said they were worried about children being left behind. I 
will make you an offer. If the Democratic Party or if any significant 
faction is prepared to make this scholarship program available for 
every child in the District of Columbia who is below the poverty level, 
I will work with you to find the funding in the next 30 days for every 
child in the District of Columbia who is below the poverty level. Do 
not tell me about the Republicans favor the rich. Do not tell me that 
class warfare baloney.
  On this program, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] worked 
with the local community to develop a program targeted to the poorest 
children in this city, the children that every one of you knows is 
being cheated today, today. The President knows they are being cheated. 
His daughter goes to a private school. The Vice President knows they 
are being cheated. His go to a private school.
  We are trying to give the poorest people in this city the same 
opportunities of the President and the Vice President.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman, the Speaker, yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, as I understand this bill, there is $42 
million over 5 years dedicated to this, and there is to be an effort to 
raise private funds. Do you think that that is going to fund the 
children of the District?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I just said, I will say to my good friend, I just said 
to you if you will support this, in the next 30 days I will work with 
you. We will put together full funding, full funding for every child 
below the poverty level. It is time that somewhere in America somebody 
had the guts to stand up and say that in the inner cities of this 
country, on the American Indian reservations of this country, and in 
some rural areas, in that order, we are cheating these children, and we 
are cheating them on behalf of teachers' unions, and we are cheating 
them on behalf of bureaucrats. We stand around and say we ought to do 
better.
  We have an article on page 1 today that says 60 percent of the kids 
in this country who are seniors cannot do any 

[[Page H 11730]]

American history; they failed the history test for the most basic 
items. This country is in a crisis.
  We had a Million Man March out here that said they are sick of the 
welfare state, they are sick of being cheated, they are sick of living 
in neighborhoods with fear of drug dealers.
  We had an article in the Washington Post yesterday describing 
precisely the kind of school the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson] is trying to save.
  Now, you want to call my bluff? Then you support the Gunderson 
amendment and let us sit down and see who is prepared to help the poor 
children. Do not tell me when Democrats vote for the teachers' union, 
against the poorest children in this city, when Democrats vote for the 
bureaucrats against the poorest children in this city, do not tell me 
who is the party of the rich. We are prepared to help the poorest 
children. We will do what we can.
  But no citizen should look at this Congress and watch somebody come 
in there and vote ``no'' on Gunderson and I think they care about the 
children. People who vote ``no'' on Gunderson are voting for the unions 
and the bureaucrats, no matter what the damage is to the kids.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] has done a heck of a job 
reaching out to everybody, and as the Washington Post said very 
clearly, there are a lot of groups who helped him until, in fact, there 
was strong opposition.
  Where does the opposition come from? It comes from the bureaucrats 
who do not want to have to change. It comes from the tenured teachers 
who are incompetent, who do not want to be challenged.
  Now, we should quit requiring the children of D.C. to go to violent 
schools, drug-ridden schools and schools that are dens of illiteracy 
and dens of ignorance, and we should give them a chance to have a 
scholarship and go to a decent place, and if the Black Caucus will vote 
with us, I will work with you to find the rest of the money.
  But do not use some lame excuse about leaving kids behind. This is an 
important first step. It is a vital first step, and if you will call 
our bluff, we will get you the resource.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. If I have time, I will. I yield to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Will you pull this bill for 30 days, let us find that money, and then 
bring the bill back to the floor so we know for sure what you are 
saying is what you will do?
  Mr. GINGRICH. If you will give me your word, if Mr. Dixon gives his 
word, we will not have to take 30 days. You two give us your word that 
you are going to vote ``yes'' on final passage when it comes back and 
you are going to vote for the Gunderson amendment when it comes back. 
We bill find the money.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Before I give you my word, Mr. Speaker, how much 
money are your promising?
  Mr. GINGRICH. Let us see how much it is going to take for children 
under poverty.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. How much money do we need to do this?
  Mr. GINGRICH. Let us see how much it is calculated.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. If you do not know how much money is needed, Mr. 
Speaker, you cannot promise you are going to bring it back in 30 days 
and fix it and then ask us to vote for it on the basis of your promise, 
if you do not know how much money is needed.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. I think the city government would have a big problem if we 
held up this bill for another 30 days. They spend that Federal formula 
money the day that it arrives.
  Mr. DIXON. If the gentleman will yield, as I listened to the Speaker 
here, it would be worth it to hold it up to fund all the kids in 
private schools in the District of Columbia. It certainly would be 
worth holding up the bill to do that.
  Mr. GINGRICH. I did not say all the kids. I said children below the 
poverty line.
  Mr. DIXON. That includes, Mr. Speaker, 92 percent of the kids in the 
school district here.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I was just going to point out that we are only talking 
about students who ``are at 185 percent of the poverty level or less,'' 
who want to apply for some kind of a scholarship. Now, we are happy to 
do a survey, and before this bill comes back from conference, I think 
we are going to be able to have some understanding of exactly what the 
cost will be.
  Mr. GINGRICH. If the Chair will indulge, let me say one last thing, 
because I have been generous in trying to yield. Let me say one last 
thing. The gentleman from Texas just implied if the scholarship money 
was available, every child in the D.C. schools would leave. If the 
gentleman truly believes these schools are so bad that every child in 
the D.C. schools would leave, then the gentleman ought to wonder why he 
is trapping them in a monopoly that is failing. If you will vote 
``yes,'' before we come back from conference we will find the money.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. I want to point out I think games are being played 
again. You see, we are forgetting all about the opportunity we have to 
get the private sector involved in fixing schools that need fixing in 
the worst way. We are talking about getting some seed money in there to 
make sure that the private sector can come and help with the 
scholarship program. But all we want to do is talk around the issue and 
forget about kids. That is the tragedy.
  Mr. GINGRICH. I have run out of time. The Chair is being indulgent. 
Let me just say if you will vote ``yes,'' we will do the survey. We 
will find out how many children want to leave. In fact, I hope the D.C. 
schools will cooperate. We will do the survey even if you vote ``no.'' 
Your predicate is that every child will want to leave, so it will cost 
too much, so let us keep them trapped where they are being destroyed, 
because we do not have the nerve to face up to how many want to leave. 
We are prepared to serve the children. You vote ``no'' for the 
bureaucrats. We will vote ``yes'' for the children. Morally we should 
vote ``yes.''
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Will you tell us how much money, Mr. Speaker, 
and we will consider whether to vote for it or not.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very interesting dialog. I 
ask unanimous consent that we have 5 minutes to continue it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I did not 
hear the request.
  Mr. DIXON. I asked unanimous consent to have 5 minutes to continue 
this dialog.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is that per side, 5 minutes per side?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Is it 5 minutes for the Speaker? Is that what it is?
  Mr. DIXON. I was asking. The Speaker can ask unanimous consent.
  Mr. GINGRICH. For a dialog or for more speeches?
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 
minutes to speak out of order.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can only entertain an even-handed request.
  The gentleman from California has 3 minutes remaining of his time. If 
there is an extension of that time, the time must be equal on each 
side.
  The gentleman from California has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay].

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Let us talk Turkey here. They are talking about what they want to do 
for the children of the District of Columbia. Let me say they have 
already denied Head Start to 690 children in the District with their 
budget cuts. They have already denied 2,500 District of 

[[Page H 11731]]

Columbia children Basic and Advanced Skills. They have eliminated Goals 
2000, denying improved teaching and learning, to as many as 21,500 
children in the District. They eliminated summer jobs for 2,029 in the 
District.
  Now they are talking about improving the quality of education in the 
District by awarding 14 scholarships, 14 scholarships, to some 65,000 
school children in the District of Columbia.
  I say this is another farce they are trying to perpetrate on the 
public.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate we increased 
Head Start in 5 years 180 percent. Guess how many youngsters got 
included? Thirty-nine percent. 180 percent increase in money, 39 
percent increase in participation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, that argument is part of the farce. That is 
part of the farce.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is certainly a very interesting conversation. Once 
again, let me say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], he 
has done an excellent job, but there is major opposition to the bill 
and major concern about the bill. The bill has never had a hearing.
  The chairman of the subcommittee talked about a hearing. I think the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] will concede he came to our 
committee, which is not the appropriate committee, took about 20 
minutes, and gave us some generalization about what the gentleman 
intended to include in the bill.
  But more importantly, the scholarship program, or voucher program, 
whatever it is called, could be applied to schools outside of this 
jurisdiction, and could be applied to religious schools.
  But, more importantly, to address the Speaker's concern, my personal 
view is that we should improve the public schools in the District of 
Columbia. That is where the problem is. Because there are not enough 
resources in this country to voucher or give scholarships to all the 
needy children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on the side of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have 3 minutes to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. There was no extension of time by unanimous consent.
  Mr. DIXON. There was no objection to the unanimous-consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advised the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dixon], if the unanimous-consent request was to extend the time 
controlled by the gentleman, under the rule, the same extension would 
have to be given to the other side. The rule adopted by the House so 
constrains the committee.
  Mr. DIXON. Could the Chairman tell me how much time I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] still has the 
right to close.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I just cannot resist, because I think 
this is such a wonderful moment. Correct me, because the gentleman from 
Wisconsin has done this work and it is magnificent, but as I understand 
it, the gentleman has provided $3,000.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. If the gentleman will yield, the maximum is $3,000.
  Mr. GINGRICH. The maximum amount to be provided is $3,000. So if the 
student in the case that has been hypothesized says, ``Can I have 
$3,000,'' we currently spend, I believe, $9,000.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Between $8,000 and $9,000.
  Mr. GINGRICH. So in fact the taxpayer will be saving $5,000 for every 
child who decided to go over. So for every child who decided to go 
over, we could have two more scholarships for the next two children, 
because the current school system is spending between $8,000 and $9,000 
on bureaucrats and people who are failing. Understand this, they are 
currently spending between $8,000 and $9,000.
  We are suggesting a scholarship program for the poorest children in 
the worst schools, and it is almost self-funding. So I just think it is 
ironic, it is fascinating, that in the last possible defense of the 
worst possible system with the least possible excuse, we are now being 
given rigmarole.
  We will find the money. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], on 
the Committee on Appropriations, said we will find the money. So do not 
suggest to us this is about money. This is about whether you are for 
the unionized bureaucracy and the teachers that are failing and the 
schools that are dangerous, or whether you are for the poorest children 
in D.C., in the poorest neighborhoods, in the worst schools, having the 
same opportunity as the Gore family, the same opportunity as the 
President's family, and, by the way, in a city where only 28 percent of 
the teachers send their children to public schools, because the 
teachers know better, and they will not send their children to public 
school. We are giving the poorest children the same opportunity for 
less cost to the taxpayer. I think there is no excuse for voting 
``no.''
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in praise of the gentleman from Wisconsin, Steve 
Gunderson, as a human being, as a colleague, and as a Member. The 
gentleman is rare. I rise in praise of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] as well. These Members have worked so beneficially and 
fruitfully with me and many in my district.
  I rise in gratitude to the Speaker, who has appointed a task force, 
which has diligently worked with us on a home rule basis.
  If Members had conducted themselves as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Gunderson] has during what I have come to call the Gunderson 
round, this would not be a polarized Congress. The gentleman has been 
an example of problem solving that the entire Congress needs to 
emulate.
  The gentleman has tried desperately for a win-win situation, and has 
virtually made it. The gentleman has respected local democracy in the 
District of Columbia. The gentleman has spent countless hours, not only 
with District officials, but with individual residents whose name no 
one will ever know.
  In the very beginning, when the Speaker's task force was appointed 
and the notion of vouchers, call them vouchers, call them scholarships, 
got in the press, the residents of the District of Columbia, I can tell 
you, were up in arms, and they called and they screamed, and they 
wanted to know more about vouchers than they wanted to know about the 
financial authority being imposed on them. I think that is because 
there has been a referendum in the District of Columbia, and in that 
referendum, a program of the kind that is a small part of the bill of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] was voted down 
overwhelmingly.
  I ask Members of the other side what you would do if there had been a 
referendum in your district and people voted this down, not because of 
money, but because overwhelmingly my constituents believe it is the 
District public schools that must be improved.
  So in the end we agreed to a compromise that was a private 
scholarship fund for private schools, and anybody could apply. For us, 
the compromise was that we knew some of our students who were best and 
most conscientious would leave, but that was the compromise.
  It was in Mr. Gunderson's own Republican conference where there was 
an insistence that there not be only private scholarship funds, which 
all of us would try to raise money for, but Federal funds as well.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an ordinary issue. Each side feels itself 
bound by principle. This has been for me a principle. That is why I 
have looked for a 

[[Page H 11732]]

compromise all during this time. This is a collision of principles, and 
pejorative comments on either side do not truly respect the principles 
that are at stake here. And on top of the principles involved in 
private funding, we have religious schools.
  The good news is I have been meeting on a daily basis and will 
continue to meet on a daily basis. The Gunderson proposal is too 
important to throw away. I refuse to give up on this bill. I regret it 
has for many of us, as in a Greek tragedy, a fatal flaw.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 177, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 763]

                               AYES--241

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--177

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Obey
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Berman
     Boucher
     Chapman
     Conyers
     de la Garza
     Fields (LA)
     Gephardt
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Stokes
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1415

  The Clerk announced the following pair: on this vote:

       Weldon of Pennsylvania for, with Mr. Conyers against.

  Messrs. ORTIZ, BATEMAN, SKELTON, and STUPAK changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no''.
  Mr. CRANE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us puts this Member in an untenable 
position. The bill has gone through needless water torture. There are 
amendments that openly invite confrontation and a possible veto--that 
can only be solved in conference. There are cuts so large that it will 
bring the District crashing down around this body one day while it is 
in session if no accommodation is reached in conference.
  Yet, Mr. Chairman, I cannot honestly stand here and say to my side 
that more of what the District wants it will get if this bill goes down 
in final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, to the other side I say, they cannot get anything more 
because they have gotten virtually everything they want, including a 
devastating cut, the most severe antichoice provision in the United 
States ever enacted in a bill, and now an appropriation in a bill, and 
much more.
  Mr. Chairman, neither side has anything more to gain by stopping this 
bill and putting the District of Columbia at risk. We have heard much 
about the D.C. government during this debate. It has been castigated as 
if the District were not reflective of the problems of urban America. 
It has been castigated as if Congress itself had not put a financial 
authority in place which has not had time yet to begin the vital and 
indispensable work of reform.
  We have heard nothing about what the District has done, that the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the chairman of the subcommittee, 
could and should have taken some credit for. I was forced to get on the 
floor with that record: the establishment of a financial authority; 
twice as many positions saved as the Congress required; a torturous cap 
that has brought services to barely breathing.
  Mr. Chairman, this morning's paper talks about an example of what the 
District has done all on its own. ``This fall, the University of the 
District of Columbia collapsed five colleges into two and 60 
departments into 18.''
  A study, Apple Seed Center, a group of conservative lawyers, has put 
out a report indicating that the Federal payment should not be $600 
million, but over $1 billion.
  Most of all, if I could continue to have my colleagues' attention, in 
my 

[[Page H 11733]]

city $2 out of $3 are earned by nonresidents. Leave aside the notion of 
a commuter tax, we do not have any State that could recycle some of 
that money back the way they do in Syracuse and Philadelphia and 
elsewhere.
  Most of all, my colleagues have not heard about the innocent 
bystanders. When people come before this Congress, they talk about the 
D.C. government. They do not talk about the people I represent.
  Mr. Chairman, the Washington Times a few days ago wrote an article 
about the people I represent. I want to leave Members with what it said 
so that they will know that what I have said about the cut must be 
rectified.
  ``Deteriorating Services Drive Out Middle-class.'' Mr. Chairman, let 
me just read a little bit of what they say.
  ``I am giving up,'' said Gail Barnes, a 14-year District resident and 
advisory neighborhood commissioner in Ward 4. ``I don't want any more 
potholes beneath my knees, street lights that are out, trees that are 
untrimmed.''
  Mr. Chairman, another part, ``The latest essential service to blink 
out is repair of street lights and traffic signals. The District owes 
Potomac Electric Power Co. about $20 million for light repair and 
citywide electric bills * * * Since its contract with PEPCO ran out 
September 25, the city has tried to handle repairs itself, but the 
Department of Public Works has been unable to keep up with the 
demand.''

  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the Speaker has called PEPCO to say, 
``Hold on. Somehow the money will get to you,'' but if that is not a 
case study in desperation for this city, I do not know what is.
  ``Hundreds of police officers,'' the article says, ``have left the 
department in recent months. Arrests have plummeted as overall crime 
has risen 11 percent compared to the first nine months of last year.''
  We are told that, ``* * * the police lack paper to copy reports, new 
tires and parts for cruisers and scout cars.'' We are told that, ``* * 
* during the summer, five of the city's 53 fire companies were closed 
each day in order to cut costs, and during the past week, six of the 
city's 16 ladder companies were out of service because of mechanical 
problems.''
  Mr. Chairman, any Members who think this city is not in a state of 
crisis should read their own Washington Times.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what Members have gone through having to 
suffer through a bill that is not their own and has nothing to do with 
them. This bill puts the District in an untenable financial position. 
It will not be improved if we vote it down.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I beg the indulgence of my colleagues just for a 
moment. this has been my first opportunity to chair a Subcommittee on 
Appropriations and bring a bill to the floor. It has been an amazing 
journey.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly explain what we have done. We pay 
the District of Columbia $660 million in lieu of taxes for property 
occupied by the Federal Government in the District. Basically, we are 
paying rent. We also give them $52 million for the pension programs for 
police, firefighters, teachers, and judges.
  Mr. Chairman, $712 million, that is what this bill is really all 
about. This year is the first time that the funds will go to the 
control board, directly to them. They will then allocate those funds, 
and they will make the cuts in agency and program budgets.
  What are the cuts? We are about $85 million under last year's funding 
level. For some, that is not enough; for others, it is too much.
  We have also asked the control board to look at a number of items 
like rent control, privatization, and the District's health care 
system. We did that to preserve home rule to let the District make 
their own decisions.

  Mr. Chairman, what are the other issues, the ones that take up all 
the debate? Abortion. For those on the right, this bill has the 
toughest language ever on a District of Columbia appropriations bill. 
On the left, the NEA amendment was defeated. There should be something 
in there to make every Member in this room happy.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for bipartisan support. I ask my colleagues to 
set their one issue aside, if they would. We have work to do. We 
complain about our constituents having one issue. They are with us 95 
percent of the time. We go off the ranch for 5 minutes, and they are 
angry and upset with us. We are doing the same thing here. I ask my 
colleagues to set their one issue aside. Help us to pass this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, a reporter did a profile of me recently. He accused me 
of being dour and humorless. I said to him, ``If you had spent 250 out 
of the last 300 days working on trying to solve the District of 
Columbia's problems, you would be suicidal, let alone dour.''
  Mr. Chairman, the District is a mess. We all know it. No Member has 
been tougher on the District of Columbia than I have, but there is 
progress. The CFO is starting to assert himself. He is starting to take 
over the finances of the District. The District is responding to 
pressure.
  We have a responsibility. We have talked a lot about our rights, but 
we have a responsibility to pay our rent to this city. We are not 
talking about the national debt. That comes next week.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just finish with a story. I had the opportunity 
not to long ago to attend a prayer breakfast where Chuck Colson spoke. 
Those Members who are old enough to remember Watergate will remember 
Chuck Colson. He went to jail for what he did in Watergate, and now he 
runs a jail ministry, and he does a wonderful job with people.
  Mr. Chairman, he talked about a statement that he made when he was in 
Washington. He said, ``I would go over my mother's back to pass a bill, 
a certain bill.'' For him, winning was everything, and sometimes it is 
for us now.
  Do my colleagues know what that bill was? It was postal reform. Now, 
I do not know if that gets my colleagues' juices flowing, but it does 
not get mine.
  Mr. Chairman, the point here is that we have got to set our 
differences aside and do our job. This is an appropriations bill. We 
have to pass it sooner or later, and I would strongly request that my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], reach across the 
aisle, as I did last year, and help us to pass this bill.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Gunderson amendment which establishes a publicly funded education 
voucher program within the District of Columbia.
  I do not wish to deny the District of much needed Federal assistance 
for their school system, but this amendment should be defeated because 
it is unconstitutional, it has broad implications regarding Federal 
education policy, and it goes against the wishes of the District 
population.
  This amendment will establish a program in which Federal dollars can 
be used for direct support to private and religious institutions, with 
no accountability for the use of those dollars. This is clearly 
unconstitutional. Time and time again the U.S. Supreme Court has held 
that public funds cannot be used to pay, either directly or indirectly, 
for religious education or the religious mission of parochial schools. 
Yet under the Gunderson amendment religious schools cam receive direct 
payment from the Federal Government for tuition costs.
  Mr. Chairman, establishing a voucher program will no doubt benefit a 
few students whose parents have the drive and ambition to stake out 
better opportunities for their children. But it does nothing for the 
many students who are not accepted to the school of their choice or 
cannot participate because there is not enough money.
  The concept of a public education system is based on a belief that 
everyone should have access to basic level of quality education for all 
students. Unfortunately, many of our public schools are not providing 
that level of education. But instead of improving that quality of 
education for all children through our public system, the private 
school voucher solution benefits the few at the expense of the many.
  I fear that this amendment signifies the approach the Republican 
majority intends to take for Federal educational assistance to 
throughout the country. It is the wrong way to go. And with our 
precious Federal education dollars shrinking rapidly the effects will 
be even more devastating.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment also goes against the will of the people 
of the District of Columbia. In an overwhelming referendum in 1981 the 
District population opposed a voucher program and again this year, the 
District of Columbia School Board reaffirmed this decision. While the 
Republican majority continues its rhetoric about local control and 
giving power back to communities and localities, when it comes to the 
District of Columbia they impose a program which the public does not 
support.

[[Page H 11734]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gunderson amendment.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, the horror of Halloween took on new 
meaning Wednesday when I learned that one of my constituents, 
Gloucester City Councilor Valerie Nelson, was hit by a car while 
visiting the District. This accident was not due to her or the driver's 
negligence. It was due to the fact that the District had not paid its 
power bill. The crosswalk lights at 14th and Independence were not 
functioning, along with hundreds of other lights throughout the city.
  The District not paying its bills is the height of irresponsibility, 
and epitomizes the type of mismanagement that has brought the District 
to its own present state of disrepair. Living and visiting the Nation's 
Capital should be a safe and special experience. While the city cannot 
insure all people against tragedy, paying the bills to maintain basic 
public safety is just that--basic.
  What started out as a great family experience turned into a nightmare 
for Mrs. Nelson. She was walking in the crosswalk with her 12-year-old 
daughter on the way to visit the Smithsonian. Her young daughter 
watched in horror as her mother was sent flying onto the hood of a car 
and then rushed to the hospital with a crushed pelvis. It is 
reprehensible that this family is suffering because of the incompetent 
District government. While this is one family in my district, we all 
know thousands of families who visit our Nation's Capital every year. 
All of our constituents--and District residents--are at risk.
  It is ironic that Americans travelling to our Nation's Capital to 
view the Government at work are imperiled because the functions of the 
local government aren't functioning. I call on the District to 
prioritize their spending. Bills related to public safety must be paid 
first--before the school board salaries, even before the Mayor's 
salary. There is absolutely no excuse for not paying bills that 
facilitate the health and well-being of citizens and tourists. What 
other important bills are not being paid? How many people have to be 
injured--perhaps killed--before the District will govern this city?
  Congress and the tax-paying residents of the District deserve to know 
the answers.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits the 
use of Federal tax dollars to subsidize vouchers for private and 
religious school education. While many aspects of the Gunderson 
amendment propose improvements in public school education in the 
District of Columbia, the voucher proposal will harm the District's 
public schools.
  My amendment does not speak to how the District of Columbia can use 
its own funds. It is limited strictly to the use of Federal tax 
dollars.
  The private school vouchers in the Gunderson amendment would allow 
Federal tax dollars to be funneled into private and religious 
institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently struck down 
programs that constitute public subsidies of religious institutions, so 
the Gunderson provision is probably unconstitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not permit Federal tax dollars to be used to 
support private schools that are under no accountability to the Federal 
Government for the type and quality of education they provide. These 
schools would receive Federal taxes even though they might discriminate 
against students, including the disabled, or would cherry pick from 
among only the best and brightest DC school children.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.

                              {time}  1430

  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gutknecht) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2546) making appropriations for the government of the District of 
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against 
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1996, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 245, he 
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 191, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 764]

                               YEAS--224

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett

[[Page H 11735]]

     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Berman
     Boucher
     Conyers
     de la Garza
     Fields (LA)
     Gephardt
     McHugh
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Pelosi
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Stokes
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1449

  Mr. PALLONE and Mr. LUTHER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________