[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E383]]



                       SURRENDER TO NEA PRESSURE

                                 ______


                           HON. NEWT GINGRICH

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 19, 1996

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues the attached article from the March 7 Washington Times. 
Columnist John Leo describes the power of the National Education 
Association in opposing any and all school choice reform measures. Leo 
observes that the NEA's power is so great that it has succeeded in 
scuttling a full vote in the other body on the District of Columbia 
appropriations bill; its school voucher initiative is anathema to the 
NEA. As a result, the financially crippled D.C. government totters near 
bankruptcy.
  Leo observes:

       The NEA, the giant dinosaur of educational policy, is the 
     largest single reason why the public school system seems 
     almost impervious to real reform. It's clear goal is power 
     over a monopolistic system, and it will do whatever it must 
     to retain that power.

  All those interested in producing true reform in our public schools 
are urged to read this column, submitted here into the Congressional 
Record.

               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 7, 1996]

                       Surrender to NEA Pressure

                             (By John Leo)

       In his generally upbeat State of Education speech last 
     week, Education Secretary Richard Riley talked darkly about 
     people who want to ``destroy public schools'' and who ``seek 
     nothing less than dismemberment of the public education 
     system.''
       These destroyers and dismemberers turned out to be ordinary 
     supporters of school vouchers or school choice, a great many 
     of whom are poor and black or Hispanic.
       In part, Mr. Riley's attack on the school choice movement 
     was protective cover for a disgraceful vote last week 
     perpetrated by Senate Democrats under prodding from the White 
     House. The Senate sank an aid package for the nearly bankrupt 
     District of Columbia government, essentially because one part 
     of the plan could have given some poor D.C. parents vouchers 
     or scholarships for children to attend private schools. The 
     plan went down on a procedural vote to prevent filibuster. 
     Sixty votes were needed, but the two votes for cloture came 
     out 54-44 and 52-42, with Democrats voting as a bloc with 
     four dissenters, then five.
       Democrats are not famous for stiffing the D.C. government, 
     for opposing ``choice'' in any form, or even for defending 
     Senate talkathons as a method of frustrating majorities. When 
     it comes to essential services, Democrats routinely argue 
     that the poor should have the same options as the middle 
     class and the rich, even if it takes public funds to 
     guarantee them. But all these normal party instincts are 
     routinely suppressed when the subject is schools and the 
     lobby applying the pressure is the major teachers union, the 
     National Education Association.
       In this case, the pressure was so intense that the 
     Democrats preferred ``a looming crisis of Congress' own 
     making,'' as The Washington Post put it, to keeping alive the 
     possibility that some poor Washington children might be able 
     to attend non-public schools. As the Republicans tell it, 
     they had the 60 votes in hand on Monday, but the NEA leaned 
     on President Clinton, who abandoned his support for the plan 
     and sent a written message to congressional Democrats asking 
     them to switch, too.
       The plan would have left the decision on these vouchers up 
     to the D.C. council, which is highly hostile to the idea. 
     Even if the council had approved, no money would have been 
     removed from public school coffers. School-choice money was 
     separate from public school aid, about $21 million over five 
     years, covering tuition scholarships for low-income children 
     most at risk for failure.
       Still, the NEA did not want D.C. voters to decide for 
     themselves, and it didn't want Congress on record as favoring 
     choice in any way, even for parents confronted with the worst 
     public school system in America. Unionized teachers, like 
     beneficiaries of monopolies everywhere, can always be counted 
     on to suppress competition. So as expected, the White House 
     and the Senate Democrats caved in on schedule.
       The NEA, the giant dinosaur of educational policy, is the 
     largest single reason why the public school system seems 
     almost impervious to real reform. Its clear goal is power 
     over a monopolistic system, and it will do whatever it must 
     to retain that power. Given its lobbying strength and muscle 
     within the party--almost one in eight delegates to the last 
     Democratic National Convention were NEA members--it can 
     reliably dictate educational policy and key votes by 
     congressional Democrats. And it can make trouble for 
     reformers of all persuasions. As Lamar Alexander once said, 
     ``Only a very determined governor has the influence to 
     marshal enough power to overcome (NEA) opposition.''
       True to form, the NEA cloaked its institutional interest in 
     fears about church-state separation being violated by 
     children attending religious schools on vouchers. By 
     coincidence, the church-state issue was argued last week 
     before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. At stake is the planned 
     expansion to religious schools of the choice program that is 
     making the most headway--Milwaukee's plan offering 
     scholarships, of about $3,200 a year per student for some 
     7,000 poor children to enroll in non-public schools.
       The state of Wisconsin argued before the court that 
     arguments calling the Milwaukee plan a violation of the 
     establishment clause are ``no more than hollow walls'' thrown 
     up to defend a failing public school system. In questioning 
     lawyers, the justices seemed dubious about the 
     constitutionality of including religious schools in the 
     program.
       Still, programs such as this stand a good chance of passing 
     muster. Since 1983, U.S. Supreme Court rulings have held that 
     this kind of support for students in sectarian schools is 
     legally permissible if the aid goes directly to parents, if 
     the choice of school is freely made by parents or guardians, 
     and if the system of funding is neutral on parental choice of 
     school.
       Former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch 
     reminds us that both the Head Start program and public 
     scholarships to college provide models for choice--in both 
     cases, public funds legally follow students even to sectarian 
     institutions.
       A Supreme Court ruling is presumably years away. In the 
     meantime, we may see many episodes like the Senate's shabby 
     treatment of the D.C. package.

                          ____________________