[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1844-E1845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE PUBLIC SCHOOL DESEGREGATION LITIGATION REFORM ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. MARTIN R. HOKE

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Saturday, September 28, 1996

  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing landmark legislation to 
ensure equal educational opportunity for all students, while getting 
the Federal courts out of the practice of running our schools.
  For more than 20 years, the Cleveland public school system has 
operated under various court-ordered remedies. The results have been 
disastrous. Almost $1 billion have been spend on desegregation 
activities in Cleveland, yet the schools are worse. Enrollment has 
plummeted. Graduation rates have declined. Average SAT scores have 
dropped. Truancy rates have skyrocketed. And racial integration has not 
been achieved. Schools with a 60-percent minority population in 1970 
are 79-percent minority today.
  The greatest tragedy is that most of these schools have been rendered 
completely dysfunctional primarily because those who can afford to--
whenever their race--have gone to the suburbs where they have the 
freedom to decide for themselves where their children will attend 
school.
  And unfortunately, this tragedy is not limited to the public schools 
in Cleveland. It is being repeated in school districts across the 
country--to the incalculable detriment of America's greatest cities.
  In September 1995, the House Judiciary Committee's Constitution 
Subcommittee traveled to Cleveland, OH, to learn more about this issue 
from the parents, teachers and school administrators who have to live 
with it every single day of the year. The message of that hearing was 
clear, More than anything else, Clevelanders want quality education for 
their children. They overwhelmingly prefer to send their children to 
schools in their own neighborhoods. And the race of the pupil sitting 
next to their child is almost completely irrelevant to them.
  The facts are overwhelming: Busing for racial balance has failed to 
improve academic achievement opportunities for minorities; has drained 
the financial resources of Cleveland public schools; and has led 
parents who can afford it to send their children to suburban or 
parochial schools.
  A second hearing held by the subcommittee in April 1996 focused on 
the unprecedented authority assumed by Federal courts in the 
administration of these student assignment orders. Most of the legal 
and constitutional experts who testified agreed that judges have 
interjected themselves in the school management arena with disastrous 
results. When non-elected judges take it upon themselves to manage 
local institutions, individuals are denied basic freedoms. Parents--not 
judges--should be deciding where children attend school. The 
willingness of the courts to allow such an expansion was no doubt 
motivated by the worthy desire to eradicate segregation. But however 
well-intentioned, this broad expansion of judicial authority has 
undermined our fundamental understanding of the separation of 
powers and has brought federal courts into the daily management of 
local institutions--something the framers surely never intended.

  That is why I have introduced legislation prohibiting federal courts 
from mandating remedies that extend beyond what is necessary to correct 
and prevent constitutional and federal statutory right violations. 
Relief must be narrowly drawn, limited and no more intrusive than is 
necessary to right the violation. Before courts enter a student 
assignment order, a less intrusive relief must have failed to remedy 
the violation. And a decision to finally enter a

[[Page E1845]]

student assignment order must be made by a three-judge panel.
  To expedite the implementation of court-ordered remedies, the 
legislation directs the courts to review existing cases--most of which 
have been in effect for twenty years or more. In cases across the 
country there is simply no justification for continued court 
supervision. Integration of the public schools is an accepted public 
policy position, and in the vast majority of cases intentional 
segregation has been eliminated. Unfortunately, in some cases, court 
orders are perpetuated by those who use them as financial leverage with 
state appropriators. For instance, when a court in Kansas City ordered 
the construction of an Olympic size swimming pool and implement a 
fencing program as part of the athletic curriculum, the state anted up 
the money.
  To put an end to such abuses, judges are to review cases after two 
years to determine whether school officials are in compliance. If it is 
determined that the district has not taken steps to remedy the 
violation, a judge may extend the order one year at a time. The 
legislation also establishes new procedures for the appointment and 
tenure of special masters.
  Finally, the measure prohibits judges from raising taxes and allows 
any state or local official responsible for the operation or funding of 
the public school to challenge the imposition or continuation of court-
ordered relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there are only a few short days left in the 104th 
Congress. However, this is an issue I have studied and worked on for 
the past two years. And I think it is important to introduce it now so 
that a broader discussion of this issue may develop over the next 
several months so that the 105th Congress can promptly consider this 
legislation. Therefore I am proud that today I am able to introduce 
common-sense legislation providing relief for America's most precious 
asset--our children.

                          ____________________