[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1321-S1339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair now lays
before the Senate the conference report to accompany H.R. 2546, the
D.C. appropriations bill.
The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I believe that under the present order
there are 2 hours allowed on the bill. I have 1 hour of that time, is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is equally divided until 12:30. So,
yes, you have 1 hour.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steve
Greene, a fellow serving on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
be extended the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 2546.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to present this conference report
to the Senate today, at long last. It has been some 90 days that we
have been trying to reach agreement. I hope my colleagues will listen
very closely to what I have to say, and I hope very strongly that we
will be able to pass this conference report. I do so with the
confidence that this is the best compromise we can achieve at this
time. It is important that we enact this bill and provide the D.C. city
government with a remainder of the Federal payment and bring to an end
the uncertainty about fiscal year 1996 appropriations. We are already
partially through the year, and we still have not met our commitment to
the city.
This bill contains some very important and long overdue educational
reforms. However, it contains a couple of provisions that were very
contentious. I will explain those briefly. I think we have reached an
accommodation on one. There is an abortion provision in there that
says, ``No funds, Federal or local, covered in this appropriations bill
can be used for abortion, except to save the life of the mother or in
cases of rape or incest.''
Also, there is a provision which was not intended to be
controversial--I want to clear that up--with respect to Davis-Bacon.
There is no intention in this bill to waive the Davis-Bacon Act, except
with respect to donated services to repair school facilities. I wanted
to make it clear that they were not covered by the Davis-Bacon Act. It
appears that in so doing, we perhaps created an interpretation that
would say it also applied beyond what we intended. There is no
intention to do that. So we will fix that at the appropriate time.
The controversial provision I am referring to is the portion that
permits the use of taxpayer dollars to pay tuition vouchers at private
and religious-affiliated schools. I urge you to pay close attention to
what we have done here. The conference agreement allows for two
different types of vouchers--one to be used for tuition, which is the
controversial part. The other is to be used for after-school enrichment
programs. Keep this latter one in mind. There is no controversy over
this at all. There are some 20,000 D.C. students right now who are in
need of remedial help. We have a 28-percent dropout rate in the city
right now. We need to do something about that.
Also, as is true nationwide, about 50 percent of the kids who
graduate from high school are functionally illiterate. I do not intend
to allow that to continue. I do not think anybody in this body wants to
do that. So we allow for the vouchers to be used--or scholarships, as
some prefer to call them--to help the kids after school who are having
remedial problems. However--and this is critical--in no case can any
Federal funds be allocated for any voucher program until the D.C.
Council approves of such expenditure. Schools participating in the
voucher plan are required to comply with Federal civil rights laws.
There is total local control here and no Federal mandate that they must
be used.
This agreement reinforces the fundamental principle of local control
and allows the D.C. Council to determine if vouchers are appropriate
for the District of Columbia public schools and to determine the
appropriate split between tuition vouchers and the noncontroversial
after-school vouchers.
Mr. President, I do not want to let the voucher piece overshadow the
other educational provisions that are contained in the bill. The
conference agreement includes a number of education initiatives
designed to improve the public education and help all the children in
the public schools in the District of Columbia by making it possible
for them to compete in the future
[[Page S1322]]
work force. This is a critical problem in the District of Columbia and
a critical problem in this Nation.
The District of Columbia public schools have a proud academic
tradition. They have produced prominent Americans and local leaders.
Our former colleague, Senator Edward Brooke, graduated from Dunbar High
School, as did Dr. Charles Drew, the founder of the blood bank; and
current D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is also a graduate of the
D.C. public schools. Space shuttle astronaut Col. Fred Gregory; former
police chief Maurice Turner; former president of Howard University,
Franklyn Jenifer; Gloria Steinem; and Austin Kiplinger, publisher of
the Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, are all graduates of the
D.C. public schools.
I do not intend for our heritage to be the destruction of the public
schools in the Nation's Capital, but rather to provide the framework
for its return to a tradition of excellence.
When this bill left the Senate, we had provided the most important
components for that framework. We included a provision that would
establish a Commission on Consensus Reform to review, comment, and
advise District officials on the long-term education reform plan,
public school budgets, and other activities of the board of education
and the superintendent.
The Consensus Commission is made up of local citizens and D.C. school
officials. Its mandate is to ensure that the reform plan that is agreed
upon and developed by the public schools and officials is implemented.
The decline of the quality of the District of Columbia's public schools
has been punctuated by study after study, reform plans, and good
intentions, but none of these studies has been notable in any
followthrough or have resulted in any significant improvement of the
schools.
The long-term reform plan provided for in this agreement will be
implemented. The Consensus Commission will fulfill the necessary step
of monitoring and oversight of school officials' actions. If city
officials do not listen to its directives, the Commission will turn to
the District control authority to implement the required action, and it
will be implemented.
There is an important relationship between the Consensus Commission
and the city's financial recovery which must be understood. When we
first started discussing control board legislation a year ago, we asked
the General Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service to
talk to those in other cities and States that have gone through
financial crises. As part of the results of those findings, GAO and CRS
reported that in each city those involved volunteered that one of the
great impediments to economic recovery and community development
efforts which would lead to financial health was the poor state of
public education in the city school system of those cities. That is
true of this city, and it is true of our Nation generally.
The District must be no exception. If we do not improve the quality
of education in this city, we cannot hope to attract people and
businesses into the city. That means that the District will become a
ward of the Federal Government. During the process of retrenchment at
the Federal level, we cannot afford to allow the city to become more
dependent upon us.
Mr. President, the bill provides for the improvement of the overall
D.C. educational system by requiring the superintendent of schools to
create a District-wide reform plan. But broad plans are of little value
if we fail individual children. The bill encourages a system to ensure
that each child has a chance to succeed and no child is overlooked. To
do this, we need to both help out teachers and hold them accountable
for the achievement or deficiency of each student, and we need to hold
the parents and students accountable so we can move forward to provide
an education that is good for every child. We cannot do this unless we
find a way to assess each student in his or her development.
There are provisions in the bill to establish up-to-date performance-
based District-wide assessments that will identify every student in the
District of Columbia public schools who does not meet minimum standards
in reading, writing, and mathematics and will provide the kind of
remedial help necessary in order to bring that student back into the
position they ought to be in.
Once we have that assessment, we can apply the resources in this bill
to those in need to get help after school, on weekends, or during the
summer. We can no longer be content with knowing that the average
number of students are performing satisfactorily. We must know that
each child is succeeding and that none is left to fall through the
cracks.
Also important is the creation of the public charter schools in the
District that provides an alternative for parents as competition for
the public school system. The expected result is a choice in public
education and an improvement in the public schools by creating an
incentive to change.
In contrast to the tuition vouchers, these public charter schools
will be available to every student in the District regardless of
income, academic achievement, or behavior problems.
The operators of charter schools must be nonsectarian, nonprofit and
will receive the same per-pupil funding from the D.C. government as
each D.C. public school receives.
The conference agreement also includes a $2 million additional
appropriation for Even Start programs in the District. Even Start is
that program which allows us to work both with the parents and with the
child, that are all illiterate, to bring them into literacy and into a
better future.
Also included are funds to begin planning for a residential school
for the District. Other school districts are experimenting with the
concept of a residential school, and the superintendent believes if you
can remove the influences of the mean streets it would make it easier
to reach some of these kids. These funds will allow the superintendent
to begin the planning process towards the establishment of a
residential school.
The creation of a business partnership is designed to leverage
private-sector funds to purchase state-of-the-art technology for the
D.C. public schools. Face it, when our local grocery stores have more
computer technology than our schools, we must make improvements. Our
world is already dominated by technology, and that trend will only
increase. If our children do not have access to technology, they will
be hamstrung in functioning and competing successfully in the business
and academic world after high school. Not only is technology essential
to remain competitive now and in the next century, it also is the
gateway to new experience and knowledge for school children.
In closing, Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the hard work and
dedication of the chairmen of the other side, Representative Jim Walsh
of the D.C. subcommittee and Representative Bob Livingston of the full
committee, for helping to bring this bill to this point. We have had
many conversations and it has been a tough fight, but I believe we have
a good bill. I also want to express special appreciation to
Representative Steve Gunderson, whose hard work and dedication was
instrumental in forming the House education reform package.
On our side, our distinguished ranking member, the Senator from
Wisconsin, has been supportive and helpful in each stage. At the full
committee, I could ask for no more cooperation and support than I have
received from the Appropriations Committee chairman. Senator Hatfield
has convened and attended meetings with me in an attempt to reach an
agreement. His help was indispensable. His counterpart on the minority
side, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, offered an
amendment contained in this conference agreement and improves the bill
in the important area of discipline.
Mr. President, I am sure that some Senators can find things in this
bill to oppose. However, we have spent 90 days in conference on this
bill. I can assure my colleagues that unlike Vermont cheddar cheese,
this agreement will not get better with age. It is time to move on, to
give the District the remainder of the payment for the cash that they
need in its strapped condition now and allow it to focus on
implementing the meaningful education reform that the majority of the
bill provides. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
I yield the floor. I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page S1323]]
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, let me begin by commending Senator Jeffords
for his leadership on this important piece of legislation. I greatly
admire his enthusiasm and his skill in putting together this difficult
bill--especially as it regards education. Senator Jeffords is a long-
time advocate of quality education for all our Nation's children, and
in the Senate-passed D.C. appropriations bill, he brought some of his
best ideas to the children of the Nation's Capital.
For example, the chairman has created a consensus commission that
will remove obstacles to much needed reform of the District's public
school system. The agreement also includes funds for the expansion of
Even Start programs for District schools, authorizes establishment of
charter schools, and encourages partnerships with business, to
facilitate technology assessment and job training initiatives.
Unfortunately, the House conferees were adamant in their opposition
to the inclusion of any education provisions in the conference
agreement--and, for that matter, adamantly opposed to any conference
agreement at all--unless a House-sponsored provision related to
education vouchers was included in the bill. I did not support this
action in conference, and I cannot now support an agreement that
includes vouchers.
As former chairman of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, I take
this step with great regret. Senator Jeffords is an able, effective and
dedicated chairman. Under difficult circumstances, he has labored long
and hard to craft a measure that will put the District on the road to
recovery. I believe that by removing the voucher provision--and by
amending the provisions regarding reproductive health and Davis-Bacon--
this report could be adopted by unanimous consent.
In my opinion the concept of public funding for private schools is
fundamentally flawed. Private schools have selective admissions
policies, in some cases enrolling only those students of a particular
religion or gender. Public schools do not discriminate: they are
charged with educating all children. Our first priority must be to help
public schools meet their goal. Unfortunately, this bill does not
reflect that priority, and therefore, I will vote against cloture and I
encourage my colleagues to do the same. I have a longer statement
detailing my objections to the voucher provision that I will include in
the Record. Mr. President, I hope that we can act quickly to resolve
this matter and produce a report which will be acceptable to all
Members of the Senate. The District is in dire financial straits and
the situation is deteriorating rapidly. It is my understanding that the
District will run out of cash within the next several weeks, if this
matter is not resolved. Unless Congress releases the balance of the
Federal payment, the city will be unable to meet payrolls, pay bills or
provide basic services. I therefore urge my colleagues on the other
side to stop holding the Nation's Capital hostage in order to debate a
subject that would be better resolved on an education bill.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that pursuant to the unanimous-
consent agreement governing this matter, time for debate has been
equally divided between the majority and the minority. For purposes of
addressing the issue of vouchers, I have agreed to yield to Senator
Kennedy such time as he may consume. I yield the floor.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Danica
Petroshius and Sam Wang, legislative fellows in my office, be granted
privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use.
Mr. President, just some obvious facts that should be evident to all
the Members as we come back to the legislative process and consider the
D.C. appropriations conference report. First of all, I want to commend
my friend and colleague, Senator Kohl, for his statement. He has, since
the time of the conference report, visited with a number of us on this
issue. He has taken great interest and great diligence during the
period of the conference. He has a real grasp and understanding about
the public issues and policy issues raised by this conference report.
As a Member of the body and the Education Committee, I want to
commend him for all of his good work and for raising these very, very
important issues in a way which I think will gain broad support. I
thank him for his attention and involvement in the issues.
Second, Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the very strong
dedication and commitment to education and adequate funding of
education from the Senator from Vermont, my friend, Senator Jeffords.
His words carry great weight in this body, as they should, on any
issue, but particularly on education issues and on the issues involving
education in the District of Columbia. He has not only been tireless in
his commitment to enhancing educational opportunities in the District
through public policy, but also he has committed himself personally in
the Everybody Wins Program, a special program to provide literacy
training to the students in the District of Columbia. Through his
intervention, the Members of this body are much more familiar with that
program. Because of Senator Jeffords' leadership, Members in this
institution and the House of Representatives, in the various Cabinet
offices, and many of the others in the community reach out and work
with young people, in training and enhancing their literacy capability.
So he brings a very considerable credibility to the positions that he
takes.
Even though he and I generally agree on most educational issues, on
this conference report I reach a different conclusion, not only because
of the position on vouchers, but for other reasons as well. I think the
Senator from Wisconsin pointed out very clearly that if the amendments
had not been included, those dealing with the issues of a woman's right
to choose, those issues involving Davis-Bacon, as well as the issues on
vouchers, this legislation would go through unanimously.
What we are faced with here, with this conference report, is what we
have been faced with in other types of appropriations, is riders that
are not directly relevant to the appropriations matters at hand. Davis-
Bacon rider waives labor protections and denies workers on federally
funded construction project the right to be paid locally prevailing
wages. Consideration of these issues falls under the jurisdiction of
the Labor and Human Resources Committee. We have had hearings on them.
We have reviewed various proposals. To undermine the committee's
ability to deal with this and to tag it onto the D.C. appropriations is
quite unacceptable.
I do not know what the majority has against workers with an average
income of $26,000 a year--that is what the average worker receives
under the provisions of Davis-Bacon. I just left a hearing of the
Judiciary Committee. Because of an oversight in drafting, $4.6 billion
are going to go to a handful of pharmaceutical companies--$4.6 billion.
In this bill, we face a rider that will undermine the ability of
construction workers to be paid the prevailing wage in the District.
This undermines their ability to receive a fair compensation. It just
once again reminds us, or should remind us and remind the American
people, about who is on whose side.
I must say, Senator Chafee is working with Senator Pryor to try to
alter that oversight. Hopefully they will be successful.
Nonetheless, we have the inappropriate rider on Davis-Bacon in this
bill. We have the inappropriate rider on a woman's right to choose.
Harris versus McRea asserts that the use of State funds to provide
abortions for poor women is a State, not a Federal, decision. But not
in this D.C. legislation. It decides how local funds will be used. We
are not letting the people in the District of Columbia, as we permit in
every other State, to make a judgment. The restrictive language in this
bill will cause a very serious hardship, particularly among the poorest
and most needy people in our society.
The majority imposed a measure affecting protections for income
levels for workers. The majority decided to superimpose their judgment
on a woman's right to choose. And the majority has imposed a private
school voucher program that was rejected a number of years ago by an 8-
to-1 majority in the District of Columbia.
The Congress refuses to say on this issue that the local people know
best.
[[Page S1324]]
How many times have we heard that rhetoric here on the floor of the
U.S. Senate? Oh, no, not with regard to the District of Columbia, they
do not know best. They do not know how they want to allocate their
resources. But, we in the Congress, we know best what is in their local
interests even though they have clearly rejected that proposal a number
of years ago. Vouchers also have been rejected in a number of States on
statewide ballots. 16 States have rejected it.
While I support various kinds of public school choice, that is not
what is at stake today. Today, the most important question is whether
we are going to take scarce education funds away from children who
attend the public schools to provide those resources to private
schools. That is the core issue.
So, I strongly subscribe to the position that was taken by the
Senator from Wisconsin who said that without these riders that are not
germane to the underlying core issue this would go through on a voice
vote.
Mr. President, having expressed my strong view about the commitment
of the Senator from Vermont on this issue, I question the seriousness
of this Congress on its commitment to supporting public schools. We saw
a year ago the cutting back of some $28 million from D.C. public
schools. This year, it is about $11 million. We know under the
Republican proposals in the House of Representatives there will be a
22-percent reduction in all support for elementary/secondary
legislation on appropriations. Let us understand what we are looking at
in a broader context. This Congress is pushing significant reductions
in funding for public schools generally, and significant reductions in
funding for D.C. public schools.
During this debate and discussion, we find individuals who say, ``We
have the answer. We do not have to provide the funding for public
schools. We do not have to listen to what the Governors of this
country, Republican and Democrat alike, recommended to the Nation when
they met down in Charlottesville, VA.'' And that is that children, in
order to be able to learn, have to go to school ready to learn. That
means they need an adequate breakfast and to be able to come from a
home atmosphere free from substance abuse, family violence. They must
be free from being preyed upon by gangs in the schoolyard and a whole
host of different kinds of challenges.
We hear that the answer to all the problems in the school districts
is vouchers. Proponents of the voucher program say that D.C. has the
choice of whether or not to implement a private school voucher program.
That decision really lies with a newly created Scholarship Corporation.
The D.C. Council only has veto power over proposals submitted by the
Corporation.
Of course, if the council does not agree, do you think the local
school district will be able to spend that $5 million for the benefit
of all the children? Absolutely not. If they do not spend it on
vouchers, they cannot spend it at all. You talk about intimidating or
attempting to intimidate the local school. If they do not go along with
this oversight body, they lose the $5 million. It is that kind of
intimidation, it is that kind of wrongheaded policy, it is that kind of
paternalistic attitude that ought to be rejected today. Again, we could
pass D.C. appropriations in a matter of seconds if we freed ourselves
from these riders.
It is important to understand the number of children we are talking
about. Even if we were able to provide the full range of funding, $5
million, to children, we would fund only 2 percent of the D.C. school
population. Vouchers take money away from what is available to children
generally in the school system to try to provide some help and
assistance, whether it is to enhance their math and science skills,
whether it is to support reading and literacy, whether it is to make
some minor repairs in school buildings that are 100 years old.
And what will the fate be of that 2 percent? Many people think that
these low-income students will be able to go to the private school of
their choice because of the voucher provision in this bill. But the
private schools can decide whether to accept a child or not. The real
choice is given to private schools, not parents or students.
Private schools choose a hand-picked group of students who are much
more likely to have college educated parents and to come from high-
income families than their public school counterparts. Public schools
can't be selective. They must take the children of the homeless and
children of limited English proficiency. The public schools take
children with disabilities. They must take all students and try to
teach all students no matter how disadvantaged their background. They
don't have the luxury of closing their doors to students who pose a
challenge.
Little Johnny wants to be able to go to private school. He is able to
qualify for that voucher, but the school says no. That is the
difference. This is not competition. This is not letting the parents or
the children make the choice. This permits the school to make the
choice. The school can turn him down. They have a limited number of
positions and they take the children that will fit into those
particular slots.
Now, are we going to insist that they take all students? Are the
proponents of the voucher system going to say, ``OK, if they do not
take them, they should take them,'' so that we have an equal playing
ground in public and private schools and have a real choice? Are they
proposing that? Of course not. Nothing of the sort.
Those who support the voucher system are not creating a level playing
field. What they are doing is taking the money, scarce resources out of
the public school system and giving it to children that may or may not
gain entrance into the private school system. We should not take the
money out of the public schools and put it into the private.
There is no evidence that voucher programs work. In Milwaukee, which
has had a voucher program for 5 years, test scores of voucher students
did not rise. One third of parents and students who began participating
in the voucher program there have opted out of it. In the last month, 2
of the 17 schools that participate in the choice program have closed
and 2 more are being audited because of serious financial difficulties.
Mr. President, I see colleagues here on this issue, and I will yield
at this time to permit them to speak and come back to this issue.
In summary, this is the wrong answer for a central challenge. We must
invest in children at the earliest possible age. That is why 2 years
ago we changed the Head Start Program to include younger children and
provide programs for parents to learn parenting skills for children to
get them involved in school. The recent Carnegie Commission report
suggests that we must be serious about investing in young children. We
do not want to abandon public schools by taking scarce resources out of
them and putting them into private schools. We are effectively turning
thumbs down on the public school system. We are abandoning them. We are
not giving them close enough attention.
This voucher proposal will fund the few at the expense of the many.
It gives scarce Federal dollars to the schools that can exclude
children. It also ignores the fact that in 16 States and the District
of Columbia this concept was rejected. And it raises the important
constitutional issues which were raised in a Milwaukee case that now
stands before the Supreme Court. It is unwise policy. It is
unjustified. And if we really care about children we ought to be
looking at what is necessary and essential as a nation to adequately
invest in those children, in those teachers, in their classrooms, and
in the latest technologies for them to have a more complete education
system.
Mr. President, I think Senator Simon was here first, and I yield to
him such time as he may want.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that Janette
Benson, who is an American Psychological Association Congressional
Science Fellow in my office, be permitted floor privileges for the
duration of the debate on the D.C. appropriations conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, we have a very fundamental policy decision
here. Vouchers are being tried right now in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio,
and perhaps elsewhere. That is the advantage
[[Page S1325]]
of the Federal system. I happen to think we have to be very careful as
we approach this. Among other things, we have very limited resources
the Federal Government is putting out, and we are talking now in this
budget about cutting back. In fiscal year 1949, the Federal Government
spent 9 percent of its budget on education. This year, as I have said
in the Chamber, it is 2 percent, but my colleague from Vermont has
corrected me and said we are down to 1.4 percent. And now we are
talking about dissipating these resources. I do not think that is wise.
Second, while technically we do not mandate the D.C. schools to do
this, what we say is here is some money and if you spend it for this,
you can have it. And if you do not spend it for this, you cannot have
the money, for a strapped D.C. school system.
Third, as Senator Kennedy pointed out, the participating schools do
not have to take all students. So there is a creaming process that
hurts the public schools. There is just no question about it. That is
the difference between this and the student aid program that we have.
Then what we do is we fail to address the real problems of the D.C.
public schools. Real candidly, I have only visited one school, the
school both Senator Jeffords and I get over to as frequently as we can
to read to a student, and that school I visit is, it is my guess, above
average for the schools in D.C.
Last year, I visited schools in Chicago, on the west side, and the
south side. I visited 18 schools. I did not take any reporters with me.
I just tried to see what was going on. I saw some encouraging things; I
saw some awfully discouraging things. We ought to be addressing the
real problems of urban schools in America.
This does not move in that direction. I hope we will restrain our
desire to move in and, with the minutest detail, tell the D.C. schools
what they ought to do. We ought to be helping urban schools. We ought
to be helping schools in our country in general much more than we are.
This is not the right way to do it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the District of
Columbia appropriations bill. I oppose this bill for the same reasons
that Senator Simon and Senator Kennedy have already discussed, because
it includes a provision that permits publicly funded ``scholarships,''
to low-income students to attend private and religious schools in the
District. I believe this is just another attempt to fund private
schools with already scarce Federal dollars, too scarce.
I have consistently opposed attempts by Congress to encourage the use
of Federal funds to support private schools whether in the form of
tuition tax credits or vouchers. Including this provision would be the
first step toward establishing a permanent voucher program for
education in this country. Mr. President, if the public schools are not
producing the product we want, we need to fix the system, not start
siphoning additional money from its purposes and from what it is being
used for now.
The system of public education in this country is available to all
children. Every young person has a right to expect to get a good
education out of the school system in this country.
If it is not producing the high level of achievement needed, we
cannot abandon it, but rather we must find ways to make necessary
improvements. Not only that, but this is a time when education programs
are suffering from a disproportionate share of Federal budget cuts.
Diverting Federal resources over to private schools rather than trying
to strengthen the public school system of this country is just wrong.
Mr. President, I think most people are surprised when they find out
what a small percentage of support comes from the Federal Government
for elementary and secondary education. The Federal Government plays a
very major role in higher education--Pell grants, loans, things like
that. That help is really an aftermath of the success of the GI bill
for education after World War II.
So the Federal Government has a very major role in higher education
but plays a very minor role in elementary and secondary education; the
highest we ever got up to was about 9 percent of the expenses for
elementary and secondary. It gradually drifted down to 6 percent. If I
heard Senator Simon correctly a moment ago, I believe the current
figure is only 1.6 percent, something like that. I do not know whether
it is that low or not. I thought it was still around 5 or 6 percent,
which is too low to begin with.
Elementary and secondary education is basically funded through State
and local funding. It comes from an antiquated property tax we should
have corrected many years ago. Go back to the early days of this
country, and most of the wealth of this country was in property. We did
not have NASDAQ and the big New York Stock Exchange and the
international flow of funds and investments. We had property, and that
was a fair measure of people's ability to support an educational
system. So a property tax became the norm for supporting education in
this country.
Now we are over two-thirds a service economy, and yet we stick with
the property tax. As Lester Thurow pointed out in his book a couple
years ago, we run our educational system not on a national basis like
every other major industrialized country in the world; in this country
we elect 15,000 independent school boards who are getting elected on
the basis of, ``We will not raise your taxes.'' That is how we take
care of one of the most important functions of our whole society--how
we educate our kids for the future, how we educate our young people to
be competitive in an increasingly competitive world.
I personally think we should be doing more on this at the Federal
level. International competition is going to eat us up if we are not
careful and do not get our kids the first-rate education that they
deserve. I do not want to see money siphoned off from our system,
supporting efforts to leave the public school system. So I will support
the finest public school system in the world, in this country and vote
to supply the money for that.
There is another concern about this that was mentioned on the floor a
few moments ago. That is, this proposal does not require private
schools receiving vouchers to accept students with learning
disabilities, behavioral problems, homeless students, or those with
limited English proficiency. You can siphon off the kids you want and
not take the kids in wheelchairs, the kids with learning disabilities,
the kids with dyslexia that are treatable and should be treated and
should be part of our system that helps young people get a start in
this world. There is no requirement for private schools receiving
vouchers to accept students with these problems.
Public schools have the responsibility to educate all students. I
certainly worry, with this legislation, that vouchers will skim the
best students and leave public education with little Federal help and
yet expect them to solve all the educational problems. That is just
wrong.
I believe that providing vouchers to religious schools also is
unconstitutional. There is no Federal or State court, as I understand
it, that has ever upheld using vouchers for private or religious
schools. In fact, in August, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an
injunction against the expansion of Milwaukee's School Choice Program
to include religious schools--an injunction against them.
Vouchers undermine any serious attempts being made to reform our
public education in this country. With this voucher provision included,
I will vote against the District of Columbia appropriations bill.
Mr. President, very briefly--I know other Senators are waiting--but
while I have the opportunity, I want to mention my opposition to
another provision in this conference agreement which was recently
brought to my attention. That is section 2551(b)(6), which would waive
Federal procurement laws for the GSA Administrator when he provides
technical assistance and advisory services for the repair and
improvement of D.C. schools.
I am told the sole reason this provision exists is to speed up the
process of getting D.C. schools in shape in conjunction with a 2-year
flash program.
[[Page S1326]]
While that may be an admirable goal to get these things taken care of
speedily, both GSA and the D.C. government have been plagued with their
share of problems over the last few decades. The District in particular
is ripe with examples where contracting was not carried out properly,
and to just waive all the rules and regulations and let them go because
we need speed in this particular area, I think takes too big a chance.
We all know too well there is enormous potential for fraud and abuse
in procurement. I am not willing to approve such broad authority
without any assurances attached to it. There are reasons for these
procurement laws, reasons throughout Government why GSA has a
procedure. We just revised them. I was chairman of the Governmental
Affairs Committee when we went through some of these procedures and
changed the procurement laws for our whole Government to protect
against fraud and abuse in these programs. To waive those things,
particularly with the District of Columbia, that does not have a good
track record in the area of contracting and fiduciary or financial
responsibility, I think is just wrong.
This legislation does not even include a reporting requirement on
contracts awarded under this provision. There is no evidence that they
considered using one of the exceptions to full and open competition
under the Competition in Contracting Act [CICA], such as unusual and
compelling urgency or in the public interest. While these procurements
would still be protestable, it would have been a much more palatable
solution than broad waivers.
I have opposed blanket waivers of procurement laws in the past. Most
recently I came to the floor to speak against the waiver of procurement
laws with respect to the FAA. Although I continue to believe that the
FAA waivers were a bad precedent to set, at least that legislation
contained a very specific list of the laws to be waived. No such list
exists in connection with this provision. A few laws, such as CICA and
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act have been named, but the
phrase, ``* * * or any other law governing procurements or public
contracts * * *,'' leaves the rest of the field wide open to include
labor, civil rights, and financial management laws.
The list in this bill, at the very least, should be as explicit in
the D.C. appropriations bill as it is in the DOT appropriations law.
This is a very dangerous precedent to set even for a limited period of
time and for a limited purpose.
If the conference report is defeated, I hope the committee will
consider this view and redraft, if not delete, this provision from the
bill.
My basic objection, going back to where I started, is, to siphon off
money from the public school system for private purposes is just flat
wrong. If we have problems with our public school system, let us fix
it. Let us vote the money for it, not siphon off what little money we
have in it now.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Connecticut such time as he
may want to use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Vermont.
I rise to indicate my support for cloture on this D.C. appropriations
bill. I do so because, as most Members in the Chamber, I would like to
begin to see some money flow to the District generally for its
operations, but I specifically want to speak to the reason why many of
my colleagues will oppose the cloture motion, and that is their
opposition to some of the education reform measures that have been
attached to this appropriations bill. I strongly support those
education reform provisions, including the scholarship program that has
been referred to in this debate, which is a relatively small part of
the overall District school reform proposals in this bill.
I must say that I approach this debate in a very different spirit. We
have been through a lot of gridlock, again, in this Congress. Ideas
that are new have been talked about. Not too many have made it forward.
But I feel a sense of joy, frankly, to have this package of progressive
and genuinely important reforms for the District of Columbia school
system on this floor for consideration today. It would be a shame if
passage of these provisions, which could do so much to help children
and families in this Capital city of ours achieve their full potential
and escape the cycle of poverty, is stopped because of opposition to
this modest program of scholarships for poor children. That is what we
are talking about. The education reform provisions in this bill were
not imposed by our friends in the House from up on high. In fact, they
had their origin with a locally based education reform commission that
was established in the District.
While all of the attention and controversy in this debate and outside
has been focused on these scholarship funds which will allow some
children to leave the public school system and go to nonpublic schools,
there are a wide variety of other provisions in this measure that
deserve to be noted.
The so-called D.C. School Reform Act, which is now part of the bill
before us, would, in fact, direct approximately $302 million out of the
$324 million in new funds over 5 years provided for in this bill to
benefit public school students, public schools in the District of
Columbia.
Let me focus on two words. We are talking here about new money. We
are not skimming money off that otherwise would go to the public
schools. We are talking about new money and, in fact, all but $22
million of that will go to the public schools. It is just $22 million
of the $324 million that are part of this innovative scholarship
program.
What else does the reform act do? It permits charter schools, public
charter schools, and encourages choice among public schools. It assists
the D.C. public schools in establishing a strong core curriculum in
basic academics, promotion standards based on a new curriculum and
training for the over 5,000 teachers in the school system.
It protects public school teachers from losing their jobs due to any
restriction in the number of full-time employees contained in this
appropriations legislation.
It provides for a new per-pupil funding formula to be developed by
the District that we think will establish the stability and
predictability in the education budget as the District cuts its overall
budget.
This measure provides so-called Even Start family literacy education
programs in public schools for over 7,000 families, including 28,000
students and parents.
It provides state-of-the-art security measures for over 3,700
students and teachers at high-risk schools in the District.
It provides work force transition assistance to 27,000 seniors and
juniors through the nationally proven Jobs for America's Graduates
Program.
It establishes a high technology training and referral center in the
District that will serve up to 4,000 18- to 25-year-olds.
And it establishes a national partnership with business to put in
place computers and high-technology infrastructure in the schools,
leveraging at least $40 million in public and private resources.
That is all that this measure does for public schools and students in
public schools.
So what is all the fuss about? The fuss is literally the tail on the
dog here. I gather that my colleagues are opposed to providing tuition
scholarships to between 1,000 and 1,500 low-income District students in
the first year to attend private schools of their choice, religious or
nonreligious, and those schools, incidentally, have to be located in
the District. Over 5 years, as many as 11,000 annual tuition
scholarships could be provided.
Do my colleagues in the Senate really want to oppose legislation that
will enable kids from families below the poverty line to receive full
tuition scholarships of up to $3,000 a year to give them a better
chance to develop their potential in safer schools? Do we really want
to stop families that are between the poverty line and 185 percent of
poverty who can qualify for half-tuition scholarships, up to $1,500 per
year under this provision?
Do we really want to oppose parts of this bill that would provide
2,000 to 3,000 after-school scholarships in the
[[Page S1327]]
first year, 22,000 over 5 years to low-income students after school
programs, including academic tutoring, nonacademic enrichment programs,
or vocational and technical training?
Mr. President, I cannot believe that is really what the Senate wants
to do and why we would block consideration of the overall D.C.
appropriations bill.
My colleagues in the Senate are probably not surprised that I am
speaking in favor of cloture on this bill and support of the
scholarship provisions, because I have fought for several years now,
usually alongside, my friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats,
who I notice is on the floor, to create a similar national
demonstration program to be available to kids in poverty areas around
the country to, once and for all, test this idea.
There is a lot of controversy about private school choice. There is
no controversy about the fact that our public schools are just not
working for millions of children in this country. There is no
controversy about the fact that if you are not educated today, you are
not going to be able to make it in the work force of today.
We are all preoccupied with the Presidential campaign and brother
Buchanan's statements about economic insecurity. What is the root of
economic insecurity, and what is the road to economic security? A
better education. The kids in our poorest school districts are simply
not getting that education. Senator Coats and I have offered the Low
Income School Choice Demonstration Act in an effort, once and for all,
to make scholarships, such as those provided in this bill for District
of Columbia students, or vouchers as we call them, available at between
20 and 30 demonstration sites around the country.
Can anyone honestly say that we are so confident about what our
public school system is doing that we do not want to test another way
to see what effect it will have on the kids who have this choice, who
get these scholarships, to see what effect it will have on the public
schools?
Senator Coats and I are open to the results. In our bill, we have the
Department of Education doing an evaluation which will help us
understand the effect of this program. Are we so intent on protecting
the educational status quo, the existing system, which we know is
failing millions of our kids, that we are not even willing to test, as
Senator Coats and I would do in 20 to 30 systems around the country, as
this bill would do in the District, another way to see whether it will
work, to see whether it teaches us anything about how we can improve
our public schools?
Mr. President, just take a look at the front page of the Washington
Post today. Coincidental, I guess. It is a story of a principal, Learie
Phillip, obviously a fine man, working hard to provide an education at
Roosevelt High School here in this city. The description is given of
just the time he spends trying to maintain basic order, getting kids to
go to the classroom, keeping children from marauding the halls,
terrorizing other kids and teachers. There are descriptions of one
teacher who attempted to get some kids to leave the halls and go to
their classes, getting beaten up brutally--a teacher beaten up.
Children are trapped; good children, wanting to learn, are terrorized
in this school system.
Let me read a quote from the Washington Post from another story last
fall about an emergency education summit Mayor Barry held at Dunbar
Senior High School on October 8, 1995.
It was a group of student leaders who came to dominate the
summit's main session--students describing life in the public
schools in the District as a world in which they constantly
go without--without books, without caring teachers and
principals, without the training they need to succeed in
life. ``Today the mayor has asked us here because there is a
crisis in our public schools,'' said Devon Williams, 15, a
sophomore at Banneker Senior High School. He adds, ``When
school first started in September, it dawned on me that many
public schools did not have teachers. I did not have a global
history teacher for 2 weeks. If I don't have a book, if I
don't have a teacher, what can I learn?''
Here is a quote from another Washington Post editorial back on June
28 of last year:
According to the Washington Teacher Union's nonscientific
sampling of D.C. teachers, 45.2 percent of the teachers who
responded said they had been victims of acts of violence.
Almost 30 percent said threats of violence had kept them or
their coworkers home from work. ``Serious disciplinary
problems are causing teachers to lose 18.5 hours of teaching
time per year for each class taught,'' according to the union
president's written testimony. ``Disruptive students steal
time away from students who come to school to learn,'' Ms.
Bullock of the Washington Teacher's Union testified.
Mr. President, if this level of fear and violence applies to
teachers, we really have to wonder and ask what life is like for the
students in the schools who are there to learn. In some schools it must
take a great deal of courage just to show up to class every day, much
less to stand out by excelling academically. It has been an American
tradition that one of the great strengths of our country has been that,
with an education, you can work your way up out of poverty. But now,
more than ever, there seems to be a vicious cycle in operation that has
resulted in a concentration of poor kids trapped in inadequate, unsafe
inner-city schools, without hope and without opportunity.
Families who have money around our country, who are faced with
sending their kids to schools, such as the one I have described, would
do just one thing: They would walk. They would use that money to
exercise a choice and remove those kids to better schools. The sad
reality is that families without money cannot do any of those things.
Families that have the money have the ability to exercise a choice.
Poor families are at the mercy of failing schools. I, for one, cannot,
in good conscience, accept the continuation of that reality. I cannot
accept what it means in terms of deepening the cycle of poverty and
hopelessness for the children of our poorest areas of America.
I know that some of the opponents of this kind of scholarship or
voucher program are concerned that it will harm public education by
allowing the best students--the so-called advantaged students--to
escape from public schools. Mr. President, in the case of this
proposal, that is just dead wrong. These scholarships will be
distributed according to a system worked out along with the D.C. City
Council. In a broader sense, it misses the whole point of what the
program is intended to do. We are trying to recognize that schools in
some parts of the country--in this case, the District of Columbia--are
not working for our kids. They are not performing their basic mission
of educating our children. And so we have to give some of the kids an
opportunity to seek a better way, until we have the ability to reform
and improve the public schools. And maybe from the lessons we learn at
these nonpublic schools, our public schools will learn how to make
themselves better.
Opponents say we should work to improve the public schools. Of course
we should. Senator Coats and I and Congressman Gunderson agree with
that. We should devote more time and energy and resources to improving
public schools everywhere. And that has been where most of our money
and effort has gone. That is where most of it goes in this bill. In the
meantime, the fact is that poor children, who are average, above
average, and below average--it does not matter--will all have a shot at
these scholarships in the District. They all deserve an equal
opportunity at the American dream. Right now, trapped in these unsafe
schools with inadequate resources, with teachers afraid to teach, they
are not getting that opportunity.
Others oppose the program because it would allow the use of tuition
scholarships at religious schools. This is an old argument. I happen to
believe--according to what I take to be the prevailing Supreme Court
decision of Meuller versus Allen in 1983--that this program is
absolutely constitutional.
But what is the great fear? Does somebody fear that by giving a poor
child a scholarship to go to a religious school, we are establishing a
religion in this country? That is ridiculous. We are giving that child
an opportunity to go to a school that his or her family wants him to go
to, and that one of the reasons they want them to go there is that, in
addition to a safe surrounding and a good education, they are also
going to get some values. Maybe that is something we have to learn, as
well, from this experiment.
The Rand Corp. did an important and revealing study in 1990. It
showed that the performance of African-American
[[Page S1328]]
and Hispanic-American children at Catholic parochial schools was much
better than that of a comparable group in public schools--not skimming,
similar kids, similar backgrounds. It also showed that the gap in
performance that exists between the minorities and other children
dropped significantly in the parochial school system.
The study identified several factors in the success of the parochial
schools they examined. Teachers in the schools are able to provide
students with more personal attention. Those schools had a more
rigorous academic curriculum. They do not teach down to the students.
They tell them that they can reach up. They set higher standards for
all the kids and, in fact, one of the results is that the kids get
either to those standards, over them, or close to them. It was less of
a stifling bureaucratic presence.
I must say that I have always felt that every time I visited a
religious-based school, another key to the success of these schools is
their sense of mission, sense of purpose and dedication to values that
the teachers and the schools bring to the classroom and to their
children. Maybe it is hard to measure that, but we see it.
Let me report briefly to my colleagues on a visit that Senator Coats
and I were able to take to a school in the Anacostia area, Dupont Park
School, affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is a very
impressive place. The principal is a devoted woman. We asked her about
the educational administrative bureaucracy there--she is it. There is
no top-heavy bureaucracy. She directs the school and takes care of all
of it.
The kids, the demeanor, the commitment, the attitude of the children
was very impressive to Senator Coats and me. Their test scores are
exceptionally high. Mr. President, 97 percent of the kids at that
school--and they come from a wide range of groups within the
neighborhood; some of them from poverty families--97 percent of the
kids test above national average.
We went into the classrooms. The first graders were talking Korean to
one another. The school choir sang a song from Africa in the African
dialect. Computers--second, third, fourth grade kids working on
computers, studying global history, working with advanced math.
The school's annual tuition, well below the $3,000 threshold of the
program of the scholarship program in this bill. We were in one of the
classrooms and we asked, ``Do you like going to this school?''
Everybody said yes. We said, ``Why do you like going to this school?''
A whole bunch raised their hands, and we called on one young man and he
said, ``I like going to this school because our teachers love us.''
This was a third or fourth grader. I thought maybe he would say it is
an old building but it is very nicely kept. I thought maybe he would
talk about the computers or the excitement of learning about world
cultures. I am not saying there are not a lot of teachers in the public
schools who love their students, but he has a sense of worth because he
has received that message from the school. In another class we said,
``Why do you think your parents sent you here?'' One girl raised her
hand and she said, ``My parents sent me here because my mom told me
that here none of the students would be carrying guns or knives.'' That
is the truth.
As I indicated earlier, it seems to me there is something special to
be learned from the schools. We ought not to cower from them in fear.
We have nothing to fear from them. We have a lot to learn from them and
their sense of purpose and dedication, and perhaps in the public
schools we can build on some of that as well.
The bottom line is this: Poor kids deserve the same access, the safe,
secure, loving, encouraging environment as kids who have more money.
That is what this scholarship program will test and offer to a small
group of children in the District of Columbia school system.
I thank the Senator from Vermont for his generous gift of time to me.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to
take a moment to straighten out the Davis-Bacon problem so that Members
will not, I think, be concerned about something that was inadvertently
done in the bill, and I am not sure is even there at all. The basic law
upon which all contracts are considered with respect to the Davis-Bacon
and the District of Columbia, and that is the Davis-Bacon law says
every contract in excess of $2,000 to which the United States or the
District of Columbia is a party for construction, alteration, and or
repair, et cetera, is included under Davis-Bacon.
Now, some of you may remember that Congressman Cass Ballenger on the
House side has this dream, and I hope it comes true, that thousands if
not millions of dollars will come in from private business and
corporations to assist in altering and helping schools.
There is a provision with respect to the head of the GSA that says
that in the event that he provides technical assistance to these
private firms, that if that technical assistance exceeds $2,000 that
should not trigger Davis-Bacon for those kinds of donated services.
That is the intention. Some say it can be generalized. I do not see
how. Because of that concern, we will take care of that when it comes
to the final bill. I just want to let everybody know that really there
is no Davis-Bacon argument in here.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to tag on, I do not know if I can
add to what was so articulately presented by my colleague, Senator
Lieberman, from Connecticut, about the many reasons why we ought to go
forward and support this demonstration effort to determine whether or
not it is a valid idea to allow students and their parents to make a
choice, or at least to have a choice, to attend a private school in
lieu of the public school education they are receiving.
Senator Lieberman and I obviously feel that it is. We have been
trying to promote the idea of school choice for several years here in
the U.S. Senate, albeit, unsuccessfully. The evidence is rolling in at
a very rapid rate that at least in certain sectors of our country the
public school system is badly failing our children. Now, many Americans
can opt out of that. They can opt out of that because they have the
financial wherewithal to select a different school for their child if
they feel that child is not receiving a legitimate education or an
education that will allow them, in many cases, to escape the poverty
that they find themselves in. Probably most, if not all, of the
Senators in this body had that choice.
I think that it is important to stress what we are attempting to do
here. We want to allow a test of the concept of making assistance
available to families and to students who do not have the financial
means to make a choice as to where their children will be educated.
Many low-income families find themselves trapped in a failed education
system or in a school that is not providing education to them in a
sufficient way to allow them to escape some of the desperate situations
that they live in. We find parents that are pleading for the
opportunity to have the choice that most of the rest of us in this
Chamber enjoy.
This is an extraordinarily modest attempt, far less than what I would
propose. Maybe it is the only thing that is achievable, but an
extraordinarily modest attempt to give a few students and their
families, in some of the poorest areas of this city, an opportunity to
opt out of a failed system and into a school that they think can
provide a better education and a better atmosphere for their children.
I ask my colleagues, if you have any doubts about the value of such
an opportunity, go and visit the school that Senator Lieberman and I
visited a couple of weeks ago. This school is located in one of the
poorest sections of this city, and the vast majority of its students,
over 90 percent, are African-Americans, many of whom are from low-
income families. Their parents have made extraordinary sacrifices to
pay the tuition, which is modest for the education they are receiving,
so the children can go there. It is one of the most remarkable examples
of the differences that exist today between private schools and public
schools in many areas.
I do not want to say all public schools are bad because they are not.
I happen to send my children to public schools. That is a choice we
have. If I were living in an area where the public
[[Page S1329]]
schools were not, in my opinion, providing the learning experiences,
providing the education, providing the atmosphere, the safety, that I
felt was appropriate, I had the choice, the financial wherewithal to
send them somewhere else. However, many low-income parents do not have
that choice. They are condemned to the school in their neighborhood,
the school to which they are assigned.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield at the end. If I had unlimited
time I would be happy to yield to the Senator because I know of his
experience in this issue and I respect that.
There is a school in Indianapolis that exists in the near east side,
one of the poorest neighborhoods of Indianapolis. It is a private
parochial school. A wealthy individual in Indianapolis who was
frustrated over the inability of low-income students to have the same
choices as other students put $3 million of his own money into a fund
that would pay for half of the scholarships at this school. The school,
incidentally, charges a per pupil tuition which is one-third the per
pupil expenditure in the public schools. This gentleman decided to pay
half the tuition for low-income families living in the inner-city
neighborhood of the school to ensure that those families would have a
choice as to where their children would be educated. The demand for
these scholarships was so overwhelming that the school could not begin
to accommodate the numbers of students interested.
This parochial school had the kind of streamlined bureaucracy that
Senator Lieberman referred to earlier in discussing private schools.
This school has one principal and I think one administrator who handled
the book work and so forth. But the remarkable difference between this
school and public schools concerned the experience of the students--the
extent of their education, their achievements, their respect for the
institution, and the involvement of many of the teachers, many of whom
were making a great financial sacrifice to teach as part of a
commitment and a mission that they felt--it was dramatic difference.
So, really what is at issue here today is whether or not the U.S.
Senate is going to continue to insist that the educational choice
available to middle and upper income families not be allowed for
essentially minority, low-income students. And whether or not we have
an obligation to at least test the concept to see whether or not the
benefits that we propose are in fact benefits that do inure to these
students.
If opponents of this proposal are correct, that this program will
undermine the public schools and not be successful at better educating
some low-income students, then we will know, will we not? If we allow
the District to experiment with school choice, as other communities are
beginning to do, we will be able to evaluate objective results. The
measures that Senator Lieberman and I have offered over the years have
provided a very stringent accountability and testing of the
demonstration program so that this Congress is given a set of data with
which to make an objective determination of whether it works or does
not work.
I am not sure that it takes some fancy studies to figure out that
there are problems in our public school system today, particularly in
many inner-city areas, and that there are parents who are desperate for
educational options for their children because they believe that the
current system condemns them to a lifetime of inadequate educational
preparation. Many families are worried that they are condemned to a
lifetime of living in the conditions they are living in because
educationally they will not have the tools to allow them to achieve a
better standard of living for themselves and for their children. So
this bill represents an extraordinarily modest attempt to experiment
with the concept of school choice. I hope that this is something that
my colleagues would take the time to examine to determine whether or
not we should pursue this type of education reform.
I come from an area of Indiana--Fort Wayne, IN--that has
successfully, for generations, operated parallel school systems. We
have a vigorous public school system which we are proud of, we have a
vigorous private Protestant system--it is a Lutheran school system--and
we have a vigorous parochial, Catholic school system, all operating
side by side. I contend, and I think the statistics prove, that all
three of those systems are healthy and are vibrant and are successful
because the competition among the three has caused all of them to try
to do a better job. I do not know of anything in America, that provides
better quality at a better price as a result of a monopoly, but I have
thousands of examples of better quality products at a lower price
because of competition. So many of our success stories have come about
by people trying to do a little bit better than the person next door,
or trying to do a little better than their competitor.
This bill acknowledges this truth about success and says that it is
possible, as a result of competition, to provide better quality
education. If any Senators can stand and argue that the public school
system does not need some shakeup, some change, I think they have not
been examining what is going on in our public schools. All you need to
do is ask the parents or ask the students or make a visit.
I know the hold of the organized public school lobby is
extraordinarily strong, but I think their arguments are becoming much
harder to defend, and I hope we can at least provide this demonstration
program. For that reason, I will be supporting the vote on cloture.
I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his articulating the many,
many reasons why we should go forward with this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The time of the Senator has
expired.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the reason the Catholic and the private
school in Indiana next to that public school is vibrant and successful
is that we are leaving it alone. The duty of the Government toward
public education is to support and finance it. The duty of the
Government with respect to private education is to leave it alone. That
is the fundamental.
When you say the question is, ``Is the United States going to insist
that the minority student not be given a choice?'' That is not the
question. The question is whether you and I, as Senators, are going to
be able to choose public money for private endeavor. I never heard of
such a thing. Is it a valid idea to allow children to attend private
schools? That is a valid idea. They do it. I happen to come from public
schools. I had a child in Woodrow Wilson public school and one at
Cathedral private school. The validity is not a question. This crowd is
wound up in pollster politics and new ideas. What nettles this
particular Senator is why in the Lord's world we are not financing
public education.
Public education is working, generally. There are many examples of
where it needs repair, but I can give you many examples of the private
schools that are more in need of repair. I wish we had time to debate
it. But the point is, having dealt with that debate we had around here
for 10 years about tuition tax credits, they are now trying to sneak in
a voucher program of financing private education. That is the same
crowd that wants to do away with the Department of Education. And when
my distinguished colleague from Connecticut says we are not taking any
money from the schools--that is true about the effect of this
particular provision on District schools. But, overall, you are taking
$3 billion from public education and are about to try to give $42
million to the private schools.
I hope we do kill this measure until we take this voucher cancer out.
If it worked--I do not think it has any idea of working, but if it
worked, you have started a multi-multibillion dollar program. If it
worked in the District, come down to Charleston. I have a lot of good
private schools down there, too. They will want financing and
everything else. If vouchers work for the private schools, why not
vouchers for the public schools? That is the one for new ideas--
education reform. This is not education reform. Scholarship,
progressive--saying it is so does not make it so.
[[Page S1330]]
I listen closely to the matter of the language and the persuasion
used here. It was James Madison who said:
But what is government itself the greatest of all
reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal controls on government would be
necessary.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men
over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first
enable the government to control the governed; and in the
next place, oblige it to control itself.
And we are totally out of control.
We are talking about new ideas--anything--but throw money, start
programs. We spent, for the last 15 years, $200 billion more than we
have taken in. It is not a question of balancing the budget; it is a
question of paying for what you get. Social Security is paid for.
Medicare is paid for. Education is not paid for. Defense is not paid
for.
You do not want to pay the bills around here. You want to, willy-
nilly, start off on a multibillion dollar program on an idea that we
are against new ideas--come on.
Mr. President, today we vote on whether or not to create a new
Federal program to pay for private school tuitions. I hope my
colleagues will keep in mind our duty in the area of education. Our
duty to the public is to support public schools and our duty to private
schools is to leave them alone.
So far, this Congress has abandoned public education. I refer to the
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, in
which the House cuts education by more than $3 billion. The cuts to
federally assisted public schools in that bill average over $1,700 per
classroom across this country.
For example--and this is not the most extreme case--I have heard
recently from a principal in Greenville, SC, at Sans Souci Elementary
School. He has been principal at three other public schools that did
not receive Federal chapter I money, and now he has taken on Sans
Souci.
``Sans Souci'' means ``without care'' in French, but that is not the
case with this school. Over 80 percent of his children qualify for free
lunch and 60 percent of the parents did not graduate from high school.
Mr. President, one-fifth of the budget at Sans Souci comes from the
Federal chapter I program. We hear all the time that the Federal role
is small--and it is on the average--but at the needier schools,
particularly at the elementary level, the role is often much greater.
Of course, the principal tells me that these funds are absolutely
necessary and effective. Last semester he used these funds to hire
reading specialists for children who began first grade with no literacy
whatsoever. In 4 months, these children were reading 60 words and
writing grammatical sentences in three-sentence groups. Furthermore,
these funds have lowered average class size in his school and allowed
him to boost the advanced training for his teachers. I would add that
these are exactly the services this Congress would cut in Washington,
D.C. We will lose basic reading and math services for an estimated
3,000 children.
But, while this Congress proposes cutting services for the majority
of the children at public schools, the stance toward private education
has been the opposite. The Speaker himself held up funding for our
Nation's capitol for 4 months to get a new, fully funded Federal
program for private schools in the Washington area. Not one Senate
conferee of either party supported this House provision. Chairman
Hatfield, Chairman Jeffords, Senator Campbell, Senator Kohl, and
Senator Inouye were in opposition. But, through the direct intervention
of the Speaker, the House would not budge until the Senate took the
whole $42 million 5-year authorization, plus full funding of $5 million
for the first year on the D.C. appropriations bill. Thus, while we are
supported to cut schools like Sans Souci, in Greenville, SC, we are
supposed to initiate funding for St. Albans and Sidwell Friends.
I have admissions information for St. Albans, for those who are
interested. The tuition is $13,322 for day students and $18,856 for
boarding students, but the deadline has already passed to apply for
next fall. The brochure notes that students are admitted ``on the basis
of entrance tests, academic promise, previous record, and
recommendations.''
So if your child cannot yet show academic promise--maybe he or she
will prove it at public school--keep your $13,000. If your child does
not compete well with other children on standardized tests, find
another school. If your child has a previous record with spots--maybe
due to emotional stress from a divorce or to a learning disability--pay
your tuition taxes, but take your child somewhere else. But if your
child is uniformly bright, spotless, and promising the school may send
a letter of invitation in mid-March.
Mr. President, the duties and privileges of citizenship in this
country do not require a letter of invitation. That is why, from Thomas
Jefferson, to Horace Mann, to Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson, we
have developed a system that admits all children. So Sans Souci must
let in all children, and St. Albans can pick and choose.
Of course, not all private schools are as expensive as St. Albans. In
fact, only 7 of the 51 private schools in Washington, DC have tuitions
in the range of vouchers provided by this bill. And six of these seven
schools are sectarian, religious schools. Mr. President, we can argue
about what the current Supreme Court says about Federal entanglement
with religion, but if six of the seven available schools are religious,
there is going to be entanglement. Furthermore, there will be
Government intervention in the independent schools.
This is not a theoretical prediction--there is a track record. In
1989, the Bush administration published a report on educational choice
in Europe--it was a prochoice document, with an enthusiastic
introduction by Secretary Lauro Cavasos. But when you get to page 210,
in the conclusion, you will find the following:
Finally, this survey brings confirming evidence to several
conflicting positions in the controversies over public
funding for nonpublic schools. For those who believe strongly
in religious schooling and fear that Government influence
will come with public funding, reason exists for their
concern. Catholic or Protestant schools in each of the
nations studied have increasingly been assimilated to the
assumptions and guiding values of public schooling.
Mr. President, that is from the Bush administration. If you value the
independence of the religious schools, if you do not want entanglement,
the real-world experience with public funding says ``watch out.''
Similarly, with respect to social division:
For those who fear that public support for parent choice
will result in race and class segregation and unequal
opportunities, the survey provides confirming evidence.
That is the studied review from a little more than 6 years ago.
Since that time, we also have a program in Milwaukee, WI. We have two
private schools that have just shut down there in the last month--one
with the director apparently involved in drugs. He reported that he was
teaching voucher children and nonvoucher children, but it turned out
that all the children were on taxpayer vouchers. Representative Polly
Williams, who wrote the Milwaukee voucher program, is calling for
regulation of the private schools. But the program is moving in the
other direction. It is expanding, and with less and less oversight or
restriction. After 5 years of yearly evaluations showed no educational
progress, the legislature has eliminated funding for further
evaluation, reportedly due to political pressure. The legislature has
eliminated the requirement that schools rely partly on privately paying
students instead of only on Government vouchers. And, the courts are
holding up the expansion due to the threat of religious entanglement.
Mr. President, this is not the fate we want for public schools. We
hear this cry for accountability, accountability, but in Milwaukee we
have gone from worrying over student achievement to worrying over
whether they will have a school.
And, while these school closings get the most attention, the real
story is that attention and support is drawn away from improving the
public schools that educate the vast majority of America's children.
This Senate should reconsider its proposals to cut public education and
to start taxpayer funding of private schools. I urge my colleagues to
start getting back on the right track by voting against cloture on this
D.C. voucher program.
[[Page S1331]]
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an article by Al Shanker, that recently appeared in the New York Times,
``Risky Business.''
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Risky Business
(By Albert Shanker, President, American Federation of Teachers)
How can we improve U.S. education? One answer that gets a
lot of applause is to introduce some form of private
enterprise. Some people call for vouchers--using public money
to pay for children to attend private, and largely
unregulated, schools. Others tout charter schools, which are
set up under state law to be independent of state and local
control though they are funded by public money. Either way,
supporters say, we would bypass the regulation that is
strangling education. And we'd create competition among
schools, causing excellent schools to flourish, good, new
schools to spring up, and bad schools to close--just the way
it happens in the business world.
All this sounds good, but voucher programs are rare and
charter school legislation is relatively new. So we haven't
had a chance to test these confident assertions against real-
life examples of how the market works. Now, though, we are
beginning to get some striking evidence about the down side
of market schools.
In Los Angeles, a charter school for troubled teenagers was
closed last year by the district. According to stores in the
Los Angeles Times, district funds were used to lease a
$39,000 sports car for the principal and pay for his private
bodyguard. Expensive furniture was purchased for the
administrative floors, and a ``secret retreat'' was held to
the tune of $7,000. The district started investigating the
school's finances when an auditor found a discrepancy between
the number of students the school was claiming--and receiving
payment for--and the number that appeared on the rolls. By
the time the school closed, four teachers were left to reach
more than 200 students, and there was $1 million worth of
unpaid bills. The school had a board of directors, but its
members apparently did not pay much attention to how things
were going with the students--or how the school district's
money was being spent.
In Milwaukee, two schools in its voucher program for low-
income students recently shut their doors, and, as I write,
two more are in danger of closing. Competition? No, poor
financial management, according to stories in the Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel. The principal at one of the failed schools
was charged with passing $47,000 worth of bad checks. The
other school ran out of funds and was reportedly unable to
pay its teachers for several weeks. The financial problems in
all four schools, three of which were new this year, arose
when they enrolled fewer students than they had counted on.
An official in the state education department said that
administrators of the new voucher schools could have used
training in financial procedures and school administration
but that legislation governing these schools did not permit
his department to offer it.
No one should be surprised. These charter and voucher
schools are the educational equivalent of small businesses.
Many of them are new, and everybody knows that the failure
rate for small businesses over the first several years is
very high. (According to the Small Business Administration,
53 percent of small businesses fail within 5 years of
starting up, 79 percent by the end of 10 years.) Failure is
usually related to what has troubled these schools--financial
problems and, often, lack of experience in running a
business.
The difference is that when a small business fails, it's
the owners who pick up the tab. When a voucher or charter
school goes out of business, it is the taxpayers' money that
is thrown away. But the chief victims are the students; they
are the ones who lose school time that cannot be replaced.
John Witte, the evaluator for the Milwaukee voucher project,
put it this way when a school closed during the first year of
the experiment:
There are those who would argue that the failure of that
school is to be expected in a market system of education.
Whether one believes that that expectation outweighs the fact
that approximately 150 children essentially lost a year's
education is a value issue that we cannot resolve. Whatever
one's values are, the price was high for those families
involved.
The costs and implications of charter and voucher school
failure do not stop here. Where do students go when their
school has shut its doors? Must taxpayers also spend money to
keep public school spaces for youngsters in voucher and
charter schools in case there are school closings? If not,
would we put them in classes that might already be filled to
overflowing? Or send them to a school with available space,
no matter where the school was located? Or should we make
them wait in line unit the following year--the way voucher
and charter schools would do?
The people who want us to embrace vouchers and charter
schools pretend that doing so is as easy as saying ``free
enterprise.'' The failures in Los Angeles and Milwaukee
remind us that these ventures are risky--and that all the
risk falls on people who have no influence over the outcome.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Washington for yielding me the time, and I reserve the remainder of our
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island
5 minutes.
Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, I oppose the conference report on the District of
Columbia appropriations Bill. I do so, however, with profound respect
for Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the D.C. Appropriations
Subcommittee, and the hard work he has devoted to this legislation. Far
more often than not, Senator Jeffords and I are on the same side of the
issue when it comes to education. Therefore, it is with deep regret
that I find myself on the opposite side in this case.
Philosophically, I am drawn to the concept of choice. It is one of
the precepts upon which the Pel Grant Program is based. As I see it,
however, the problem is not only when but also how we move toward
greater choice in education. My difficulty with this provision is that
it comes at the wrong time and does it in the wrong way.
With current Federal education funding so much at risk and with
Federal education programs suffering such a disproportionate share of
cutbacks, I do not believe it is prudent that we move in this direction
at this particular time. Given our scarce Federal resources, I am of
the mind that they should continue to be directed primarily to the
public schools that educate almost 90 percent of our Nation's
elementary and secondary school children.
Further, private schools today choose which students they want to
educate. They are not required to accept students who are difficult to
teach in terms of behavior or educational deficiencies. They operate in
a manner that is wholly different from the rules under which the public
schools are required to function. In the absence of Federal funding,
this may be acceptable. However, if they are to become the
beneficiaries of a federally supported scholarship or voucher program
as proposed in this legislation, I believe we should expect more of our
private schools.
It is unforunate, indeed, that there is no guarantee in this bill
that students with disabilities, students with discipline problems
students with language deficiencies, or homeless students will have
access to private school education. Private schools could continue to
choose not to accept them. Thus, these students could well be left in
the public schools, and the public schools, in turn, left with even
less resources to devote to their education. It is a choice program
that leaves public education in the lurch, and I fear it would set a
very unfortunate precedent.
At this particularly critical time, I believe it very important that
we continue to devote our resources primarily to the public schools
charged with the responsibility of eduating all children, regardless of
their disadvantage, their deficiencies, or their disability. In that
vein, I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this conference
report.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 15 minutes and 55 seconds on the
Senator's side and the opposition has 10 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise as a Senator who, as a teacher for 20 years,
spends time about every 2\1/2\ or 3 weeks in a school in Minnesota.
First my premise. I think education is the foundation of it all. I
think it is the key to welfare reform. I think it is the key to
reducing poverty. I think it is the key to a stable middle class. I
think it is the key to helping us decrease violence in our communities.
I think it is the key to successful economic performance of
[[Page S1332]]
our country, and I think it is the key to a functioning democracy.
The second point I wish to make. I heard my good friend from
Indiana--and he is a good friend--talk about the need for shakeup. I
think education needs to be shaken up as well, although I wish to start
out with one point, and I am not talking about any of my colleagues
here. I do not mean this personally. But I am absolutely convinced,
having spent a lot of time in our schools, that some of the harshest
critics of public education could not last 1 hour in the very
classrooms they condemn.
So now my point. You are right; education needs to be shaken up. We
need to make sure that, first of all, children at birth have a chance,
which means that every woman expecting a child has to have a diet rich
in vitamins, minerals, and protein, and we cut nutrition programs, but
somehow a voucher plan is going to help. Education needs to be shaken
up. That is right. Children need to be ready to learn when they come to
elementary school, but you know what. Some of the very folks who are
talking about the voucher plan--not all--want to cut the Head Start
Program. They do not want to fund adequate child care. We have children
2 and 3 years of age, as I see with my own grandchildren, that every 15
seconds are interested in something new; they are exploring all the
unnamed magic of the world, but what we are doing, rather than igniting
that spark of learning, we are pouring cold water on that spark of
learning. We ought to make a commitment to these children when they are
young, but we do not.
That would be shaking up public education. It is hard to teach 38
kids in elementary school. We need to have class sizes much less. But
we have not dug into our pockets to make that commitment of resources.
When kids go to school and the buildings are dilapidated, the toilets
do not work, and the heating does not work, it is hard to believe that
as a matter of fact the adults care very much about you, but we have
not committed the resources to dealing with this dreary, dilapidated
physical infrastructure.
Education needs to be shaken up. There is no question about it. But
the problem is the context of this plan. We had a continuing resolution
in the Chamber a couple of months ago--we are going to come back to it
again--outrageous, a 20-percent cut in title I money for kids with
special problems and vocational education and Head Start, and at the
same time we are talking about starting on a voucher plan.
I said to my colleagues before, I say it again, if you can marshal
the evidence that shows me that we have made a commitment to children
in this country, we have made a commitment to doing something positive
about the concerns and circumstances of their lives, we have made a
commitment to public education, we have made the investment and then
that does not work, I would be the first to come to the floor and say
let us try something different.
We have not made that commitment at all, in which case this makes
absolutely no sense. There is going to be a further reduction of funds,
and that means what this gets to be is a zero-sum game. I say this with
sadness to my colleague. It is less money for education for
mathematics, for history, for English, for language. It is less money
for public education for support services for students. It is less
money for public education to recruit and train teachers. It is less
money for public education to reduce the violence in our schools so
that we can move forward to safer schools, in which case this plan is
not a step forward. It is a great leap sideways. As a matter of fact,
it is a great leap backward.
That is what this is all about. We say to D.C. we will put a rider on
your appropriations bill, telling them this is the money and you have
to spend it for private vouchers. That is unacceptable. It is
unacceptable because--I do not care how many speeches are given in the
Senate Chamber--we have not backed up the photo opportunities we all
like to have with children. We have not backed up all of our discussion
about how the children are the future with an investment in resources
for public education so every child will have the same chance to reach
his or her potential. We have not done that. So do not talk to me about
how a voucher plan is the answer when we have not even made a
commitment to the answer.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia wanted 1 minute,
and I would be glad to yield to him.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Virginia 2
minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I first thank my distinguished colleague
from Rhode Island and the manager.
I wish to assure the manager that I am going to support him on the
cloture motion, although I feel very strongly about an issue which I
will address momentarily. I think it is imperative that the District of
Columbia be given its budget. I support the various provisions of this
measure.
But, Mr. President, regrettably, certain elements of the government
in the city, namely, the D.C. Taxicab Commission, voted on February 6
of this year to terminate a longstanding taxicab reciprocity agreement
between the District of Columbia and areas in northern Virginia and in
Maryland.
Mr. President, this affects the way we do business here because we,
the Congress of the United States, are very dependent on the best
means, safest means, most cost-efficient means of transportation for
the many people who visit not only Capitol Hill, but come here as
tourists and the like. This is an effort by the District of Columbia to
disrupt an agreement that essentially has been operating and operating
for the benefit of all for 50 years.
Mr. President, I am going to fight unrelentlessly. I would seize this
vehicle, if it were possible, this legislative vehicle to make sure we
continue the practice that has served this greater metropolitan area
for years.
As I said, on February 6, 1996, the D.C. Taxicab Commission voted
unanimously to terminate the longstanding taxicab reciprocity agreement
between the District of Columbia and Arlington County, Fairfax County,
the city of Alexandria, and Montgomery County, MD.
The reciprocity agreement permits taxicabs properly registered in
their home county to: Transport persons from their county of origin
into the District and discharge passengers; to pick up passengers in
the District and take them to their home county in response to a call
to a dispatcher at the home county; to transport passengers in response
to a prearranged trip, and immediately following the termination of a
trip.
The D.C. Taxicab Commission's action will prohibit all taxicabs not
licensed in the District from providing taxicab and ground
transportation service of any type which physically originates in the
District.
Mr. President, ending taxicab reciprocity is highly contradictory of
the metropolitan area's long record of cooperation on transportation
matters. The unilateral cancelation of reciprocity could well begin a
chain of events that could lead to increased fares in every
jurisdiction, and it could easily result in District taxicabs being
unable to pick up fares throughout the rest of the metropolitan area.
Passengers could find themselves unable to rely upon consistent,
dependable service from carriers with whom they have grown accustomed.
Instead, they could be passed like batons from carrier to carrier
because of artificial and unnecessary barriers. This could have a
particularly harsh effect on disabled and elderly citizens who rely on
local taxi service to commute to work in the District, as well as
contractual agreements by D.C. firms on behalf of their Virginia
resident employees.
I understand that the conference report on H.R. 2546 cannot be
amended. Indeed, at this point, we do not know if cloture will succeed.
My thoughts are that this is meant to be a strong advisory to the
District
[[Page S1333]]
government and the Taxicab Commission to closely reconsider their
decision on revoking reciprocity.
As I understand it, the commission decision must first be transmitted
to the District corporation counsel for proposed rulemaking, and that
action has not yet happened. There is still time to reconsider a
decision which perhaps was made without fully considering what could be
a strong negative impact on their own services.
I fear the D.C. Taxicab Commission may have fired a shot, as they say
in the Navy, without fully considering potential retaliation. If indeed
Virginia taxicabs are prohibited from dropping off and picking up fares
within the District, what is to prevent Virginia from prohibiting D.C.
taxi service at such major hubs as the Pentagon and National and Dulles
Airports.
So, Mr. President, let this be a warning shot across the bow. While
this conference report cannot be amended, we will have a continuing
resolution in the near future which would be an appropriate vehicle for
a funding prohibition on the enforcement of the reciprocity repeal.
I would prefer not to take such action. I do not like to interfere
with D.C. home rule. However, we are dealing with an ill-conceived
policy which would have a detrimental effect on my constituents and
metropolitan transportation services as a whole.
I look forward to meeting with District officials in the near future
as well as other Members of the local congressional delegation. Our
goal should be the provision of the best transportation services
available for each of our municipalities, but working together with a
strong sense of cooperation for the common good.
Mr. President, I thank the managers.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, last fall the Senate approved a version of
the D.C. appropriations bill with no trouble. We passed it here in the
Senate with no difficulty. Later, the House passed its version, but in
its version there was the creation of a new Federal spending program to
provide private school vouchers to a select group of students. This
conference report which we are dealing with today creates the first
federally funded private school voucher program in the United States of
America.
The Senate conferees, Republicans and the Democrats from the Senate,
were united in their opposition to the House private school voucher
provision. The House would not yield, and for months an agreement could
not be reached. The Senate bill did not include, as I say, anything to
do with vouchers. We never had an opportunity to address it. There had
been no hearings on this measure in the Senate. But the House has said,
take this new Federal spending program with all its flaws or the
District of Columbia will not receive its Federal payments.
This appropriations bill, I submit, should not be used to force the
Senate to endorse the creation of a new Federal spending program with
dubious merit. It is no accident, it seems to me, Mr. President, that
this new voucher program has been attached to the D.C. appropriations
bill. None of us have a constituency. None of us are responsible to the
District of Columbia voters. They cannot punish us or reward us in any
fashion. We are unaccountable for our actions.
Under this proposal, the parents do not choose the school that their
children will attend. The private schools select the children who are
going to attend those schools. This is not a luxury that our public
schools have. Our public schools cannot pick and choose among the
students. Public schools are committed to providing an education to all
our children. They have to accept the child who comes to the school in
the middle of the school year, the child who comes with disabilities,
the child whose primary language is not English. They have to accept
the child with disciplinary problems or the child with the low IQ.
Private schools do not have to accept any of those children and can
reject any child who falls into the above categories--does not speak
good English, does not have the adequate IQ, and so forth. In short,
private schools have the ability to select the smartest, the least
difficult students with the fewest challenges to overcome, those
students with the greatest family support.
Jonathan Kozol, the Harvard-educated Rhodes scholar who is best known
as a teacher, a civil rights worker, and the best-selling author of
``Savage Inequalities,'' and more recently the good ``Amazing Grace:
The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation,'' has been an
outspoken critic of American education, particularly in our inner
cities. Yet when asked about private school choice, this is what he had
to say:
Choice doesn't do anything for poor children. It simply
creates a system of triage that will enable the most
fortunate to opt out and leave the larger numbers of the
poorest and least sophisticated people in schools nobody
willingly would choose.
There is a myth that poor schools somehow magically improve to meet
the competition. Kozol says:
Contrary to myths, the poor schools do not magically
improve to meet the competition, nor do they self-destruct.
They linger on as the depositories for children everybody has
fled.
The role of our schools has changed dramatically in the past three
decades. Schools have taken on extraordinary new burdens. Today we are
seeing youngsters with learning disabilities, youngsters who do not get
enough to eat, youngsters born with drug or fetal alcohol problems,
youngsters from totally shattered families. As a society, we expect
that our schools will take in these children and help make their lives
better through education.
I believe it is wrong to provide Federal dollars to private schools
to enable them to skim the best students from the public schools and
leave the public schools with the greatest challenges to deal with.
It is curious, it seems to me, Mr. President, that under the House
appropriations bill, the District of Columbia will lose its $13 million
this year, $13 million in title I and so forth programs, yet at the
same time this report authorizes $42 million over the next 5 years--$5
million this year alone. So this is $42 million over the next 5 years
that, it seems to me, could far better be spent on improving our public
schools in the District of Columbia, renovating the shabby buildings,
upgrading the facilities, purchasing new books, installing computers
and Internet connections, rewarding excellent teachers. All of these
things that money could go for.
Mr. President, I would like to conclude by saying that in Milwaukee
they have such an experiment. They have had it for 4 years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CHAFEE. The results of that have not shown an improvement in
those students who come from the low-income schools as opposed to those
students who remained in the low-income schools.
This proposal permits taxpayer dollars to be used to pay for
religious education. Even if this plan was approved by the House and
Senate and signed by the President, it would be a long time before poor
children in the District received these vouchers because this proposal
would go straight to the courts.
On December 14, 1995, I received a letter opposing the voucher
proposal from a group of local D.C. religious leaders who believe that
providing taxpayer dollars to religious schools would damage their
religious autonomy, and they agree that it would violate the first
amendment. They argue:
Public funding will inevitably lead to regulation of
religious schools, harmfully entangling the government in
religious matters. Currently religious schools are free from
government intrusion and may enroll and hire those of their
own religion. This independence is important given that the
mission of a religious school is to promote its faith in its
pupils. The ``scholarships'' will threaten the schools'
ability to operate in a fully sectarian manner.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the
letter be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that
another letter in opposition to the voucher proposal from the Baptist
Joint Committee be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CHAFEE. Finally, Mr. President, on the issue of federally funded
vouchers for religiously affiliated schools, I would like to quote Mr.
Gunderson, the author of this proposal. On August 12, 1992, during a
speech in the House
[[Page S1334]]
Chamber in opposition to a voucher amendment by Mr. Armey,
Representative Gunderson said, ``Choice which goes beyond public and
private schools to include religious schools, I have to tell my
colleagues, raises serious constitutional questions.''
The underlying assumption of private school voucher plans is that
public schools are doing a bad job and private schools are better. The
advantage that private schools appear to have over public schools
disappears when students of similar backgrounds are compared. Private
school achievement measures at a much higher rate than public school
achievement because private school students come from much more
advantaged backgrounds with higher incomes and parents with higher
levels of education.
In a report entitled ``Fourth Year Milwaukee Parental Choice
Program,'' researchers found that voucher students in private schools
are not doing better in math and reading than low-income students who
remained in the public schools. Another study by Bruce Fuller of the
Harvard University graduate school of education called ``Who Gains, Who
Loses From School Choice: A Research Summary'' reported that after the
third year of the Milwaukee voucher experiment reading scores were
essentially no different between choice students and similar low-income
Milwaukee public school students.
In 1993, many of those who support forcing this voucher program on
the District of Columbia opposed Goals 2000: the Educate America Act
because, they argued, it lessened local control over education. Well,
Mr. President, if anything lessens local control over education in the
District of Columbia, it is this conference report. It has not been
asked for by the D.C. school board, but Congress set up a special board
and a new program for the District of Columbia.
Supporters of the voucher plan say the District of Columbia should
provide choices to parents. They say the District of Columbia should
have charter schools. They call for partnerships between city schools
and the Smithsonian Institution. The truth is that the District of
Columbia has all of these things. The District has public school
choice. There is a charter school program at a school not six blocks
from the Capitol. Down the street there is a middle school which has
entered into a partnership with the Smithsonian. D.C. public schools
are the only public schools in the area that provide an all-day
kindergarten program, and every high school in the District is a magnet
school.
Is there room for improvement? Of course there is, and I suggest that
if those who put forth this plan were truly interested in improving the
education of D.C. students, they would provide sorely needed additional
resources to the public schools here. They would encourage the District
of Columbia to look at schools and programs that are succeeding here
and try to emulate that success.
I find it extraordinary that the 104th Congress, which is dedicated
to local control and cutting spending, is seeking to enter into a
brandnew spending program to micromanage a local school system.
I will vote against cloture, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
Exhibit 1
gunderson's ``scholarships'' hurt religion
As clergy of the District of Columbia and those committed
to the principle of separation of church and state, we
strongly oppose the ``scholarships'' provision, advanced by
Congressman Steve Gunderson, in the D.C. Education Reform
Proposal. These ``scholarships'' will funnel public dollars
to parochial and other religious schools, thereby damaging
their religious autonomy and violating the First Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.
Public funding will inevitably lead to regulation of
religious schools, harmfully entangling the government in
religious matters. Currently, religious schools are free from
government intrusion and may enroll and hire only those of
their own religion. This independence is important given that
the mission of a religious school is to promote its faith in
its pupils. The ``scholarships'' will threaten the schools'
ability to operate in a fully sectarian manner.
Furthermore, under the U.S. Constitution's church-state
separation provisions, government may not subsidize sectarian
education. If tax dollars are funneled to religious
denominations in the form of ``scholarships,'' all citizens
will be paying taxes to support religion. This intrinsically
breaches our nation's heritage of religious freedom.
Therefore, in the debate over the ``scholarships,'' do not
omit the principle of religious liberty from consideration.
Sincerely,
Rev. Charles Worthy,
Pennsylvania Avenue Baptist Church.
Rabbi Fred Reiner,
Temple Sinai.
Rev. Kenneth Burke,
E. Washington Heights Baptist.
Rev. Eliezer Valentin-Castanon,
General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist
Church.
____
Baptist Joint Committee,
Washington, DC, December 13, 1995.
Dear Representative/Senator: The Baptist Joint Committee
serves the below-listed Baptist groups on matters related to
religious liberty and the separation of church and state. The
Committee has consistently opposed efforts on the part of
government to funnel tax dollars to teach religion, whether
couched in terms of direct grants, voucher tax credits or
``scholarships.'' Accordingly, we urge you to vote against
any attempt to fund parochial schools in the District of
Columbia Appropriations Bill.
Such funding mechanisms are unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court has struck down virtually every form or direct
financial aid to parochial schools at the elementary and
secondary levels. Government should not be permitted to do
indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.
It is also bad public policy. This kind of scheme is
unfair, engenders unhealthful governmental regulation of
religion, endangers public education, and may exacerbate
class divisions--creating welfare for the wealthy, while the
needy continue to go wanting.
Finally, it violates core Baptist convictions that
authentic religion must be wholly voluntary. Religion should
be dependent for its support on the persuasive power of truth
that it proclaims and not on the coercive power of the state.
Utilizing the things of Caesar to finance the things of God
is contrary to true religion. These principles apply full
force to religious education.
Thank you for considering our views on this very important
legislative initiative.
Yours very truly,
J. Brent Walker.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the manager of the bill.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes. The
Senator from Vermont has 8 minutes 21 seconds.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join us in
assuring that we can go back to the table and pass an appropriate D.C.
appropriations bill. There is inappropriate language in this bill on
Davis-Bacon, there is inappropriate language in here that puts
conditions on a woman's right to choose, and we have heard much over
the last hour and a half about the inappropriate language on vouchers
that is included in this bill.
There have been many eloquent statements by my colleagues in
opposition to the vouchers, but let us stop for a minute and ask, who
wins under a voucher system? Do the parents? Do they really get a
choice? Not really, Mr. President. The private school administrators
will have more of a choice in students that they will be able to select
for their private schools, but parents, unless they have the money that
they will need, will truly not have a choice. And they will not have a
choice if school administrators say ``no'' to their child.
Will the students win under a voucher system? There is no evidence
that students will win. In fact, in Milwaukee, which has had a voucher
program for 5 years, test scores of voucher students did not rise.
There is no evidence that students do better.
Will the public schools win? Hardly. We have heard many arguments
about the money that is currently out there that will be taken from our
public school system that will not be used for every child in America
to assure that we continue to make sure that every child has the
opportunity to get a good education in this country. Public schools
will clearly not be a winner.
Will private schools be a winner under a voucher system? Hardly.
Private schools will have taxpayer dollars coming into their schools.
They will then have to respond to taxpayers as to how they spend their
money. They will have oversight and they will have to respond to all of
us who pay our taxes
[[Page S1335]]
for vouchers if they decide to buy equipment or supplies. They will
have to be responsive to taxpayers because it will be taxpayers' money
that they are using. I hardly think that the private schools will win
under this voucher system.
Will the taxpayers win? No, they will not. It is merely moving money
around.
If we were to pass a voucher system today, we would have to write a
check for every student who is currently in a private school, in terms
of a voucher. That will amount to billions of dollars. If we do it in a
small district like the District of Columbia, just take a look at the
number of students who are currently in private schools. If a voucher
system passes, do the students who are currently enrolled in private
school get a check or do new students coming in get those checks?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
Under the voucher system, no one wins. I think that we need to step
back and pass an appropriate D.C. bill and remove these riders.
I retain the remainder of my time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself 6 minutes and 21 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. President. What has happened today is
what I had hoped would not happen. It has taken us some 90 days to get
here to bring forward a proposition to this body which would keep us
out of the national debate over the use of the voucher system. This is
not the time or place for that. We have a city which needs help, and we
have to give it help.
So what, in my mind, might have started out as a torpedo aimed at the
midsection of public education in the District of Columbia or the
country, now has turned into a small shot across the bow, and there is
even an opportunity to divert all the powder resulting from firing that
shot.
That is where we are right now. So let us not make this into a big
national issue. Let us wait for that some other day, but let us take
care of the District of Columbia school system.
Let me clarify some statements here that are confusing. First of all,
there are no D.C. public school funds being used at all. This is a
separately appropriated fund.
Also, the District of Columbia sits in an unusual situation, so it is
hard for us to do anything as a demonstration project in the District
of Columbia without giving it some Federal implications. We have to
keep that in mind.
What I wanted to see done, and what we have done in this bill, is to
make sure that this is a locally controlled option.
There is a nonprofit corporation set up to receive the funds. There
will be two different types of vouchers that will be allowed, or
scholarships, if you want to call them that. One is for remedial help
and one is for tuition scholarships. So we do not know how much is
going to be spent on each. There is only $5 million, and there could be
private funds to help even more.
Also, the private board that is set up will be awarding each
scholarship, and under the mandate of this bill, they must ensure, to
the best they can, that there is a diversity of academic achievement
levels represented among the students that receive the scholarships. So
the scholarship board will have control over that.
The other issue that was brought up is about the ability to
discriminate. The schools cannot discriminate and, again, the board is
required to make sure that does not happen. The bill specifically
requires that the civil rights laws be carried out and that they will
make sure, with respect to the handicapped, that section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act is not violated.
Finally, I believe, and believe strongly, that when the final
analysis is made, there will be vouchers, but the pressures will not be
for the tuition vouchers--hopefully, there will be private funds to
satisfy that demand--but there will be so much need for vouchers for
remedial help for these kids. We have some 20,000 young people in this
city who are in need of remedial help.
My belief is there will be such a strong demand on the District
Council to see that after-school vouchers are distributed to those in
need, and, hopefully, there will be private funds for tuition
scholarships so that almost all of the Federal funds will be used for
remedial help.
Let us not make this into something it is not. It is not an attempt
to try and establish a mandated Federal program. This is a local option
for the city. I have no problem with sending a message to the public
school system that they better get going or else they may see a larger
program.
It has been 90 days. We have gone through option after option. We
have had two agreements that fell apart, and we finally reached this
one, which no one who is familiar with it is happy with, which is
probably a pretty good solution. The scholarship program is not as far
as some would like to go toward trying to establish a voucher system,
and it is too far, obviously, some say, because it is a nose under the
tent.
So I urge my colleagues to take a look at this. Do not get swallowed
up in trying to make this into an argument about a national mandate.
Let us take care of the kids in Washington, DC. Let us worry about the
school system here and the wonderful things that this bill will help us
do to make sure we can change this city's educational system from one
which is an embarrassment to one which we can be proud of again, proud
as we were in the past. That is my goal, and I am sure the goal of all
here.
Let us not scuttle this bill, because if we do not pass it, then we
have to start all over again in the process of trying to see what we
can come up with as a compromise.
I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture, and let us go on and take
care of the city, which is in desperate need of funds right now. They
are about ready to go bankrupt. I cannot see us taking another 30, 60,
or 90 days trying to find an answer. Let us accept this one for what it
is, not for what you fear it may be or for what you may want it to be.
Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from Washington
that 1 minute, 43 seconds remains on her side, and the Senator from
Vermont controls 3 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the
private school voucher plan included in the conference report on the
D.C. appropriations bill.
At a time when our public education system is suffering under the
weight of draconian cuts in Federal education programs, diverting
precious resources to private and parochial schools is the wrong
message to send to our Nation's children.
This year alone, the Congress has already cut $3.1 billion from
education programs--the largest cut in education funding in American
history. This is money that would help children learn new skills, raise
test scores, provide money for college education, and prevent violence
and drug use in our schools.
We should not be taking scarce Federal funds away from public school
students. Instead we should take this opportunity to reaffirm our
commitment to reforming our public education system, which educates 88
percent of American students. But, this bill would tell our public
schools and the vast majority of our Nation's children: ``We can't
improve our public schools, so let's not even try.'' Well, I reject
that argument.
Our universal public education system is one of the very cornerstones
of our Nation, our democracy, and our culture. And this voucher
proposal would fundamentally undermine this ideal by spending Federal
taxpayer dollars for students to attend private and religious schools
that are unaccountable to the public.
Instituting a voucher system in Washington, DC, would also seriously
harm most of Washington's low- to moderate-income families, who depend
on public schools for their children's education.
Supporters claim that these vouchers will allow D.C. schoolchildren
to attend better schools. But the fact of the matter is, the vast
majority of children in Washington, particularly those who are the
poorest and who need the most help, will remain in public schools.
For thousands of students and their parents, Federal resources that
are desperately needed to repair D.C.'s ailing schools, provide
counselors to deal
[[Page S1336]]
with the many social problems that face Washington's young people, and
equip teachers with the tools they need to educate their students will
be diverted to the few who are lucky to attend private and parochial
schools.
Supporters claim that this voucher proposal will give parents a
choice on where their children go to school. But, in fact, these
vouchers will not fully open the doors to private education, because
private and parochial schools will be under no obligation to accept all
applicants.
Private schools will pick and choose the best students; and the ones
with the lowest test scores, the ones with learning disabilities and
discipline problems, and the ones for whom a $1,500 to $3,000 voucher
will not begin to pay the, on average, $10,000 tuition for private
schools in the District will be the ones left behind.
In addition, these proposals raise serious constitutional questions
about using Federal money to pay tuition at religious schools. No
Federal or State court has ever upheld the use of vouchers for
parochial schools, and I seriously doubt that this bill will be any
different.
Supporters claim that if this proposal passes, Washington DC, would
serve as an important testing ground for the voucher program. But why
test a program that doesn't work and that the American people don't
want? Considering the fact that Federal resources are already strained,
we shouldn't be using the District of Columbia appropriations bill to
waste taxpayer money on bad ideas.
Washington, DC, residents, like those in California, Colorado, and
Oregon have voted down vouchers in various ballot initiatives.
Electoral rejection of these programs may be due in large part to the
fact that private school vouchers don't live up to their advanced
billing. In Milwaukee, where the voucher program has been in place for
5 years, test scores of students, who utilized vouchers, failed to
improve.
I understand the importance and relevance of private and parochial
education. I am a product of St. Thomas the Apostle, a Jesuit boys
school. And, I am very proud that my parents made the decision to send
me there. But, I am also aware that when making that decision they
weren't expecting to be subsidized by the Federal Government. They
understood the importance of our public education system and that the
Federal Government should do all it can to support our public schools.
I have long believed that education should be made our No. 1 priority
in Congress. A strong education is critical to forming productive,
thoughtful, and tolerant citizens.
I have fought to reform our public schools in the past, and I will
continue to do so in the future. However, I strongly believe that
sending taxpayer dollars to private and parochial institutions will
drain already meager Federal resources and undermine serious
educational reform efforts.
I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing private school vouchers
and work to support a bill that provides real school improvement for
the District of Columbia's schools.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Hawaii.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for
yielding to me.
Mr. President, I rise to register my opposition to the school
voucher provision included in the pending measure. The conference
report to the fiscal year 1996 D.C. appropriations bill contains
language that would establish a scholarship program for low-income
students to attend private and religious schools or attend after-school
programs in religious, private, or public institutions.
As a former teacher and public school principal, my chief concern is
that this measure would, for the first time, permit Federal tax dollars
to be used to subsidize private or religious education. This provision
represents the proverbial camel's nose under the tent of public
funding, which could lead to the diversion of additional Federal moneys
toward private instruction. Worse, it would encourage States and
localities to follow the Federal example, with disastrous consequences
for public education.
There are no quick fixes for what ails our system of learning. It
takes time, energy, and resources to construct and maintain school
buildings, to develop appropriate curricula, to hire and train
effective teachers, to encourage parental involvement, to make our
schools safe from crime. And it takes time, energy, and resources to
ensure that our schools provide our children with the skills and
knowledge necessary to respond to the economic, scientific, and
technological challenges that will confront them upon graduation.
Nevertheless, speaking from my background as an educator, I know that
given adequate attention and resources, public schools can and do work.
I have no quarrel with private or religious schools. In many cases,
they provide a quality education for thousands of young people; in
fact, we have many fine private institutions of our own in Hawaii. But
private schools are by nature highly selective. They may choose their
students on virtually any basis one could care to name, including
income, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, aptitude, behavior, even
physical or emotional disability. This exclusiveness guarantees that
only a small fraction of school-age children will be able to
matriculate in private schools; as a consequence, the vast majority of
children will continue to be served by public schools.
Knowing this, is it our place to take away precious funds from the
many who attend public schools in order to assist the few who attend
private schools? Is this an appropriate, fair, or wise use of tax
dollars? How many public schoolteachers could we hire for $42 million,
the amount that this program will cost over the next 5 years? How many
textbooks could we give to inner-city children? How many school lunches
could we offer undernourished kids? How many personal computers could
we purchase for classrooms? Most importantly, what would be the long-
term cost of this provision to public instruction, if this provision
opens the door to additional raids on the Federal Treasury in the name
of school choice?
Mr. President, vouchers are the snake oil in the pharmacology of
American education, a quick fix for an imagined ailment. They expose a
lack of will and imagination in addressing the real education
challenges facing our Nation, challenges which millions of teachers,
students, and parents could overcome in public schools around the
country, if only they had the support we and other policymakers could
give them. I urge my colleagues to reject this approach, and instead
work hard to improve what we already have, a democratic system of
public education that is funded by all citizens for the benefit of all
Americans.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to invoke cloture on
this measure.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from Vermont
about a provision in the conference report that concerns me. That is
section 2353(c), which requires that $1.5 million of funds available to
the board of education be used to develop new management and data
systems. I am informed that the amount required to be used for such
purpose exceeds the amount of the board's budget, which, as I
understand it, would effectively shut down the District's board of
education. Although minority conferees were not permitted to
participate in the drafting of much of the conference agreement, I can
only speculate that this was not the intent of the majority conferees.
I would therefore ask the manager to explain this apparent discrepancy?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin has raised a
problem that came to my attention only after the conference had
concluded, and in fact after the House of Representatives had acted on
the conference report.
When this provision was agreed to, and it was included in the draft
of the education title of the bill that was shared with conferees and
others on December 14, 1995, the budget for the board of education was
more than $1.8 million. However, I am now informed that at the end of
December 1995 the board proposed reductions in its own budget and that
the council reduced the budget and staffing of the board of education
that will be recommended to the control board and then to the Congress.
I did not know of these actions until February 1, 1996, the day after
the House adopted.
[[Page S1337]]
It is not this Senator's intention to shut down the board of
education. It is my intention, and I believe of the other conferees,
that the board ensure that the management and financial information
systems of the public school system be modernized and upgraded so that
the implementation of the reforms we propose can be monitored, both by
the board and by others.
If we do not have accurate and timely information we will not be able
to achieve the results the kids need.
Mr. President, I would suggest to the Senator that since this will
become a part of the statute, that I will seek a legislative remedy at
our earliest opportunity. Alternatively, I would suggest to city
officials that, since it is not our intent that the board cease
operation, a reprogramming from other sources could be effected so that
the operations of the board can continue. Such reprogramming should be
at levels approved by the council and control authority.
I hope that this explanation clarifies that our conferees are intent
on this matter.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference
agreement accompanying H.R. 2546, the fiscal year 1996 District of
Columbia appropriations bill.
The conference agreement provides Federal payments to the District of
Columbia totaling $727 million. The bill provides $660 million for the
Federal payment, $52.1 million as the Federal contribution to certain
retirement funds, and just under $15 million for a Federal contribution
to a new education initiative.
The bill is at the subcommittee's revised 602(b) allocation for both
budget authority and outlays.
I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member
for their diligent work on this bill over these many months.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
budget committee scoring of the final bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
D.C. SUBCOMMITTEE, SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal year 1996, dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
Category authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:
Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions
completed..................................... ......... ........
H.R. 2546, conference report................... $727 $727
Scorekeeping adjustment........................ ......... ........
--------------------
Adjusted bill total.......................... 727 727
====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:
Nondefense discretionary....................... 727 727
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate Subcommittee
602(b) allocation:
Nondefense discretionary....................... ......... ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, given the District of Columbia's
financial problems, it is unconscionable that 5 months into the fiscal
year, Congress has yet to approve a D.C. appropriations bill. It is
equally unconscionable that months after an agreement was reached on
the amount of money Congress would appropriate for the District, when
the Senate is at long last scheduled to vote on the D.C. appropriations
bill, that the bill contains controversial and seriously flawed public
policy riders.
The bill contains provisions that tie the hands of the D.C.
government with regard to abortion services, and that trample the
rights of workers. This bill also creates a federally funded, private-
school voucher program. This bill takes $5 million away from the D.C.
public schools this year and gives it to private schools.
Mr. President, this bill is an abrogation of our responsibility as
public officials to support public education. It is public education
that has, throughout history, made it possible for generations of
Americans to blur class and wealth divisions. It is public education
that has given women and minorities voices in our democracy, and it is
public education that has created a strong middle class. It is on the
foundation of quality public education that rests the hopes and
opportunities embodied in the American Dream.
The Washington Post has recently published articles describing
textbook shortages, unsanitary bathrooms, and other problems with the
D.C. public schools.
The legislation before us today should address these problems.
Congress should work to improve the quality of public education in this
country and in the District. Instead, this bill calls on the Federal
Government to walk away from public education.
The House-passed Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill cuts Federal
support for public education by more than $3 billion--the biggest cut
in history. Under that bill, the District loses $8.5 million. Under the
bill before us today, the D.C. public school system loses another $5
million this year, and $42 million over 5 years.
There are 80,000 students enrolled in the D.C. public schools. Fifty-
seven percent of them are classified as ``low-income.'' This bill buys
tuition vouchers for 1,666 of these low-income students. This bill buys
vouchers for 3.6 percent of low-income D.C. students--or 2 percent of
the total number of students attending D.C. public schools.
What about the other 98 percent?
Mr. President, public schools receive Federal funds based on
attendance. Under this bill, every child that accepts a tuition
voucher, leaves the public school system, and attends a private school,
drains funds out of the public school system. This bill essentially
pays private schools to take money away from public schools.
In addition, for every 100 students, D.C. schools get a resource
teacher--like a reading or science specialist. Every child that leaves
the public school system depletes the base of students that makes these
specialists available.
Under this bill, schools will have less resources for the 98 percent
of children who will remain in the public schools; there will be fewer
teachers; and the public school children will have less of a chance of
receiving a quality education.
Mr. President, I hope that the day will come when every one of our
public schools is among the best in the world, and when we are
therefore in a position to debate the merits of whether or not we
should give Federal dollars to private schools.
But we are not in that position. And Congress cannot take a position
of siphoning funds out of public schools.
If the authors of this bill would like to bring the issue of school
vouchers before Congress, then I challenge them to do so. It is wrong
to tack these unacceptable measures onto this spending bill.
It is our responsibility to help the D.C. public schools educate our
children, just as it is our responsibility to help the D.C. government
deliver basic services to its residents. Regretfully, this bill backs
away from the children, and as such, I am left with no choice but to
vote against it.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the District
of Columbia appropriations conference report for fiscal year 1996. I
would like to recognize my colleague, Senator Jeffords, for all of his
efforts to move this bill along. Under his chairmanship, Senator
Jeffords has been given the task of managing the delicate balancing act
between fiscal restraint and social responsibility, and as a result, he
has been subject to pressure from all sides. As a member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, it has been
difficult for me personally to keep the process moving and support what
I believe is right in this legislation, in spite of what I think is
fundamentally wrong with this legislation. That is why I supported the
conference report when it was reported out of the appropriations
subcommittee. In an effort to keep the process moving forward I will
support the motion to invoke cloture, however my concern with several
provisions that remain in this conference report will cause me to vote
against final adoption of the conference report, even though it
contains much needed funds for the District of Columbia.
Mr. President, the conferees on the D.C. subcommittee worked
diligently to craft a conference report that provided adequate funding
for the District of Columbia. Notably, the funding issues were never a
point of contention, rather there were several legislative provisions
that have been the focal point of all of our discussions.
First, the bill places clear restrictions on a women's right to
choose.
[[Page S1338]]
The final language in this bill specifically makes an exception for the
life of the mother, and in cases of rape or incest, but I feel that
even this language is too restrictive and dictates who can receive an
abortion and when. This is a role I do not believe the Government
should be playing.
Second, and most importantly, I have had difficulty with the school
voucher provision of this bill. While this conference report includes a
compromise on the initial voucher proposal, it still provides $5
million for the implementation of a voucher program. I have always been
concerned that there may not be adequate accountability from private
and parochial schools that they are, in fact, providing the best
education for low income students.
Vouchers are often looked at as a cure-all for the ills of public
education. While I think it is unreasonable to claim that public
education is failing our children, I do believe that our schools need
reform. We need to infuse our public educational system with creative
and innovative new ways to approach the rapidly changing demands of our
society. Our public schools need to be empowered, not ignored, and I
believe that vouchers would do just that: ignore the problems by
providing an out--a choice to abandon the public schools.
Our Nation must have a strong public education system, that provides
opportunities for both excellence and equality. To that end, I urge my
colleagues to join me in an effort to think of new ways the Federal
Government can better serve the States and the school districts to
combat the modern challenges of public education. It is only by
directly addressing the problems, through which solutions can be found.
In closing Mr. President, it was clear that the two Chambers came to
the table with very divergent views on how to develop this conference
report. The conference report before us represents many compromises
that were made in order to move this bill forward. However, these
compromises represent a conference report that I cannot support.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority, Mr.
Jeffords, and minority, Mr. Kohl, managers of the conference agreement
on the Fiscal Year 1996 District of Columbia Appropriations Bill. I
know, from 7 years of personal experience as Chairman of the District
of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee, how much effort is required
and how much frustration is involved in dealing with the problems
encountered in formulating this legislation. It is a thankless job.
This conference agreement includes a limitation of $4.994 billion,
which is $154,347,000 below the District's August 8, 1995, budget
request. The reductions contemplated are to be allocated by city
officials with the approval of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, also referred to as
the Control Board, which was established last year.
The Senate conferees have worked hard to bring a conference agreement
to the floor which should significantly improve the education programs
of the District, including a provision, which I authored, designed to
improve discipline in the schools. I understand that the House
conferees were adamant, in insisting on the inclusion of a
controversial education voucher provision, in order to break an
impasse. Despite this, the conference agreement includes a number of
other education initiatives, which is a tribute to the hard work of the
Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Jeffords, who has spent so much time
over the past year in an effort to draft legislation which would
reinvigorate the D.C. public school system. I commend him and encourage
him in those efforts, and especially those relating to increased
discipline in the schools.
I want to commend the staff of the Subcommittee. Tim Leeth on the
majority and Terry Sauvain on the minority are two experienced
Committee staffers. Mr. Leeth has worked for both the majority and
minority and represents a proud tradition of non-partisanship on the
Senate Appropriations Committee staff. Mr. Sauvain's first assignment
on the Senate Appropriations Committee staff was to this bill in the
early 1970's. He has held a number of important assignments since then,
and for the last 7 years has served as my Deputy Staff Director of the
Appropriations Committee, a position which he currently fills in
addition to his work for the Subcommittee.
Finally, I want to commend someone who has assisted the House and
Senate District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittees for the past
35 years. Mrs. Mary Porter, an employee of the District of Columbia
government, has been assigned on detail to the Appropriations
Committees for at least a part of each of the past 35 years. Mrs.
Porter is one of those quiet and competent civil servants who works
behind the scenes. Her faithful and dedicated service are to be
commended.
Again, I thank the managers for their hard work in bringing this
conference agreement to the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in the last few seconds remaining on this
side, let me just say the Senator from Vermont has done an admirable
job of trying to get the D.C. appropriations bill through, and I
commend him. But I do think, despite the fact that this bill needs to
pass, that with the unnecessary riders and messages and political
motivations, now is not the correct way to do it.
If we defeat cloture today, we can go back and do what the Senate did
before and pass a D.C. appropriations bill that is acceptable to all
Members of the Senate.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, again, I thank my friend from Vermont.
I associate myself with everything the Senator from Vermont has said,
including particularly the sense of despair, even outrage, that we may
defeat continued funding for the District of Columbia which desperately
needs it because of opposition to a very small part of this proposal
that calls for scholarships for kids in the D.C. school system.
I want to suggest in closing that those who oppose the scholarship
program are opposing a false choice. This is not an either/or. It is
not if you are for the scholarship program, you are against the public
schools. Obviously, we are all for the public schools. I am a proud
graduate of the public school system. I have supported just about every
funding proposal for public schools that has come here and opposed
those that have proposed cuts for the public schools.
The fact is that billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money
are spent every year in our public school systems. There is almost
nothing to give the kind of choice we are talking about testing in the
District system.
So what is the big deal? The choice to me is this: Is our
responsibility to protect a system, which is to say the public schools,
right or wrong--and we know they are failing millions of our kids
today, doing a great job with millions of others--or is it to better
educate our children?
This is not just a question of money. If it were, the District school
system would be in better shape than it is, than I described in the
sentences I uttered earlier on. The District of Columbia public school
system spends more per student than any other State, than any of the 40
largest school systems in America, and still it has the problems it
has.
My friend from Washington asked, ``Who wins in the scholarship
program?'' I will tell you who. It is 11,000 students in the District
of Columbia--mostly poor kids, by definition--who, by this measure,
will have the opportunity to have a choice to do what families with
money do when their kids are in schools where they cannot have an
opportunity to learn.
Think about it from the point of view not of the school system or of
the teachers, but of the parents of these kids. Maybe a single mother
working hard to bring up a child can give that child values, hope, and
a future, and this scholarship system is that hope.
Are we going to frustrate those 11,000 kids and stop funding for the
District of Columbia? Good God, I hope not. I am going to support
cloture.
[[Page S1339]]
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 12:30 having arrived, the Senate
will stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:32 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m.;
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding
Officer (Mr. Coats).
____________________