[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10257-S10262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 1156, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1156) making appropriations for the Government
of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable
in whole or in part against the revenues of said District,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other
purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Coats modified amendment No. 1249, to provide scholarship
assistance for District of Columbia elementary and secondary
school students.
Graham-Mack-Kennedy amendment No. 1252, to provide relief
to certain aliens who would otherwise be subject to removal
from the United States.
Mack-Graham-Kennedy modified amendment No. 1253 (to
amendment No. 1252) in the nature of a substitute.
Amendment No. 1253 to Amendment No. 1252
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Florida is
the pending business.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeWine
be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S10258]]
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this amendment was offered last Thursday. We
still have not had one Member come to the floor to speak in opposition
to it. It has received support from both sides of the aisle and is
supported by Senator Abraham, the chairman of the authorizing
subcommittee. It has received positive editorial support from a wide
array of newspapers, including the Washington Times and the New York
Times. It has also received the endorsement of Empire America.
Yesterday I introduced into the Record a letter of support from Jeanne
Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, William Bennett, Lamar Alexander and Steve
Forbes.
This is a narrowly targeted amendment which merely ensures that
Central Americans receive the due process which they were originally
promised. It is focused on an identifiable group of people and ensures
their opportunity to apply for suspension of deportation. It is not a
grant of immunity.
I have not been able to obtain an up-or-down vote on my amendment, so
I will be moving to table my own amendment. I will oppose the motion to
table, and ask for the support of my colleagues in opposing the motion
to table.
So, Mr. President, I therefore move to table amendment No. 1253.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote be
delayed until 12:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased that after almost a week we
are on the verge of having an expression of the Senate on this
important issue. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer also be
added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that a statement by the
President, which was released on July 25 of this year, at the time the
administration supported the principles of the Immigration Reform
Transition Act of 1997, also be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The White House,
Office of the Press Secretary,
July 25, 1997.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to submit for your immediate consideration and
enactment the ``Immigration Reform Transition Act of 1997,''
which is accompanied by a section-by-section analysis. This
legislative proposal is designed to ensure that the complete
transition to the new ``cancellation of removal'' (formerly
``suspension of deportation'') provisions of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRIRA; Public Law 104-208) can be accomplished in a fair
and equitable manner consistent with our law enforcement
needs and foreign policy interests.
This legislative proposal would aid the transition to
IIRIRA's new cancellation of removal rules and prevent the
unfairness of applying those rules to cases pending before
April 1, 1997, the effective date of the new rules. It would
also recognize the special circumstances of certain Central
Americans who entered the United States in the 1980s in
response to civil war and political persecution. The
Nicaraguan Review Program, under successive Administrations
from 1985 to 1995, protected roughly 40,000 Nicaraguans from
deportation while their cases were under review. During this
time the American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh (ABC)
litigation resulted in a 1990 court settlement, which
protected roughly 190,000 Salvadorans and 50,000 Guatemalans.
Other Central Americans have been unable to obtain a decision
on their asylum applications for many years. Absent this
legislative proposal, many of these individuals would be
denied protection from deportation under IIRIRA's new
cancellation of removal rules. Such a result would unduly
harm stable families and communities here in the United
States and undermine our strong interests in facilitating the
development of peace and democracy in Central America.
This legislative proposal would delay the effect of
IIRIRA's new provisions so that immigration cases pending
before April 1, 1997, will continue to be considered and
decided under the old suspension of deportation rules as they
existed prior to that date. IIRIRA's new cancellation of
removal rules would generally apply to cases commenced on or
after April 1, 1997. This proposal dictates no particular
outcome of any case. Every application for suspension of
deportation or cancellation of removal must still be
considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposal simply
restores a fair opportunity to those whose cases have long
been in the system or have other demonstrable equities.
In addition to continuing to apply the old standards to old
cases, this legislative proposal would exempt such cases from
IIRIRA's annual cap of 4,000 cancellations of removal. It
would also exempt from the cap cases of battered spouses and
children who otherwise receive such cancellation.
The proposal also guarantees that the cancellation of
removal proceedings of certain individuals covered by the
1990 ABC litigation settlement and certain other Central
Americans with long-pending asylum claims will be governed by
the pre-IIRIRA substantive standard of 7 years continuous
physical presence and extreme hardship. It would further
exempt those same individuals from IIRIRA's cap. Finally,
individuals affected by the legislation whose time has lapsed
for reopening their cases following a removal order would be
granted 180 days in which to do so.
My Administration is committed to working with the Congress
to enact this legislation. If, however, we are unsuccessful
in this goal, I am prepared to examine any available
administrative options for granting relief to this class of
immigrants. These options could include a grant of Deferred
Enforced Departure for certain classes of individuals who
would qualify for relief from deportation under this
legislative proposal. Prompt legislative action on my
proposal would ensure a smooth transition to the full
implementation of IIRIRA and prevent harsh and avoidable
results.
I urge the Congress to give this legislative proposal
prompt and favorable consideration.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, July 24, 1997.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is an extremely important and urgent
bill, because the continuation of the 1996 law, with what I will
describe as its inadvertent retroactive application to this class of
people, is causing great distress and unnecessary instability in
communities that are principally affected. As those who participated in
the press conference earlier today underscored, this is a group of
people who came here largely at our request. They came here because
communism had taken over their country. They came here because the
Soviet Union was establishing a satellite state in our own hemisphere.
They came here in order to participate in those ultimately successful
efforts to establish a democratic government in Nicaragua.
Now for us to change the rules from those that were in place at the
time we extended that invitation, to have the practical effect of
denying these people even the opportunity to be heard on their request
for a permanent residence in the United States, is outrageous and
inconsistent with basic American principles.
I underscore what Senator Mack and I have said throughout this
debate. This is not an amnesty provision. By the passage of this
legislation, no one automatically has their status in the United States
altered. What they do have is the right to use the rules that were in
effect when they came to this country to apply for permanent legal
status in the United States. I think that is just fair and consistent
with the relationships that we want to establish with, particularly,
our neighbors in this hemisphere.
Mr. President, I applaud my colleague for having asked for this
tabling motion which, obviously, is not a motion in which he is going
to urge success, but it is our means of getting an expression of
opinion by the U.S. Senate on this fundamental issue. I urge defeat of
the motion to table and then a quick adoption of this amendment. Thank
you, Mr. President.
Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Mack
amendment. I, of course, therefore will oppose the motion to table.
This amendment will ensure that fundamental principles of fairness are
respected in regard to the cases of some 316,000 immigrants, some of
them from Central America.
In the immigration bill Congress passed last year, we changed the
criteria for suspension of deportation. Certain retroactive changes in
that bill, at least as they have been interpreted by the INS, had the
unintended
[[Page S10259]]
effect of applying these new criteria to applications of suspension for
deportation which were already in the pipeline when the bill was
passed.
The Mack amendment will ensure that those immigrants whose cases were
in the pipeline when the 1996 immigration law took effect will have
their cases decided according to the criteria in effect at the time
that the law actually passed. It is only fair that we should not change
the rules in midstream for these worried immigrants.
Let me take us back to the 1980's when we granted these 316,000
Central American immigrants temporary protection from deportation. We
knew at that time the terrible consequences of war--the grinding
poverty, human rights abuses that had driven these men, women, and,
yes, children, to our shores.
At that time, we told these immigrants that their protection from
deportation would be permanent if certain conditions were met--that is
what we told them then--7 years of continuous residency, good behavior,
proof of extreme hardship awaiting them in their native country. We
basically said, ``As long as you can prove that, then this will be
permanent.''
When Congress changed the law in 1996, we clearly did not intend to
change the rules for these people who already, at that time, were in
the pipeline. We, in essence, had made a commitment to them. We, in
essence, had made a deal with them, and I don't believe we should go
back on that deal today.
Mr. President, the Mack amendment would keep faith with these
individuals. It is not, as my colleagues from Florida have already
pointed out, an automatic grant of amnesty, nor is it an automatic
grant of permanent residency. Far from it. It is merely a restoration
of the original conditions these immigrants have to fulfill if we are
going to allow them to remain in this country.
I had the opportunity this morning to participate in a press
conference concerning this issue. I also had the opportunity a few
months ago to travel to Nicaragua. I had made several visits to
Nicaragua in the 1980's, about a decade ago. For me to go back to
Nicaragua a few months ago was a very pleasant experience, and it was
pleasant because I had seen where Nicaragua was. I had the opportunity
a few months ago to see where Nicaragua is today. Yes, it is still the
second-poorest country in this hemisphere and, yes, there is high
unemployment and, yes, there are many, many problems. But what we see
in Nicaragua today is a fledgling democracy. We see a country that is
becoming what we envisioned and had hoped for and worked for in the
1980's, and that is a democracy.
Today, for the first time in history, all five Central American
countries are democratic; all five are working to bring about the
reforms that truly are an example of democracy.
When I traveled to Nicaragua, I had the opportunity to speak with
then President-elect, now President Aleman and talked to him about his
vision for his country.
One of the unintended consequences of the bill we passed in 1996, and
one of the unintended consequences of the deportation of these 316,000
immigrants would be that we would strike a hard blow against democracy
in Nicaragua and El Salvador and the other Central American countries.
Anyone who has looked at these countries today understands what an
economic impact and political impact it would have if all these
citizens, all of these individuals were instantly returned to their
native countries.
The ability to absorb these individuals simply does not exist. It
does not exist from an economic point of view. Further, this would take
away a major source, frankly, of income to these countries, a major
source of help to the economy, not United States foreign aid, but
rather the remittances that are sent back by Nicaraguans who are living
in the United States. Those remittances are a major contribution to the
Nicaraguan economy today. To take that away, I think, would have a very
severe and devastating blow to the economy of Nicaragua and the economy
of the other Central American countries.
That is not the principal reason to support the Mack amendment, but
it is a fact, and it is a fact of life.
The central reason to support the Mack amendment is what has been
stated on this floor by Senator Mack on several occasions, as well as
Senator Graham, and that simply is this is a matter of equity, it is a
matter of fairness, it is a matter of keeping our word, and it is a
matter of doing what is right.
I urge my colleagues to support the Mack amendment and, therefore,
vote against the motion to table the Mack amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
amendment No. 1249
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we had, I think, a very constructive debate
on the school choice issue, scholarships for D.C. children.
Unfortunately, while having obtained a majority vote in support of at
least a test of a program to provide some educational opportunities to
D.C. children, we were not able to break a procedural vote of 60
necessary to move forward with this legislation. That limited our
options considerably. While Senator Lieberman and I were pleased with
the fact that we received more votes than we ever have on this issue,
we were still two short of the necessary number to break the promised
filibuster on this, and that limits our options.
Mr. President, this is an issue that is not going away. I have always
said this is not something that will be legislated from the top down in
Congress but will be a grassroots movement from parents and PTA's and
administrators and educators and others throughout America who are
demanding better education for their children. Unfortunately, in many
instances, they are not finding it in some of their public schools.
This is not a condemnation of the public school system. There are
many fine public schools across this country. There are dedicated
teachers, dedicated administrators, schools that are providing
opportunities for their young people.
I am a product of the public schools, as is my wife. Our children are
products of public schools, and we have found schools that have
provided a sound education for our children.
Unfortunately, there are people in this country who don't have the
options that we have had, who don't have the options that those of
means have in terms of where they live, the school systems they choose
to support, to be a part of and options that, should they find
themselves in the situation where they are living that their public
schools are not providing the education their children need or a school
that has such a high incidence of violence and crime and other problems
that they don't feel their children are safe there, they don't have the
option that many of us have of transferring their student to a private
school or another school outside the system or moving to an area where
they can receive the kind of education they want their children to
receive.
There is a very interesting story this morning in the Washington
Post: ``Popularity Grows for Alternatives to Public School. Some
Districts Reacting to Threat of Competition.''
The whole point we were trying to make yesterday is that we are not
trying to undo the public school system. We are trying to provide
options and alternatives for parents who are trapped in those public
schools. But, by the same token, we hope that the competitive pressure
will shake them out of their lethargy and cause them to bring about the
changes and reforms necessary to make them viable once again.
In quoting from the Post, an article by Rene Sanchez, it says:
In a movement flustering schools across the nation, more
parents than ever are choosing alternatives to public
education for their children, so much that what once seemed
only a fad to many educators is instead starting to resemble
a revolution.
Charter schools are expanding at breakneck pace. Religious
schools are overflowing with new students. Home schooling is
attracting unprecedented numbers of parents who only a few
years ago would never have dreamed of teaching their own
children.
Those migrating from public education say the roots of
their disenchantment vary. Some parents are frustrated with
bureaucracy, others fear student violence. Some want their
children to spend more time learning values, others call the
one-size-fits-all model of most large public schools an
ineffective and impersonal way to learn.
* * * * *
[[Page S10260]]
But today those trends have begun to send a powerful
message to public schools, even prompting some of them to
acknowledge a threat of competition for the first time.
Our system is built on competition. We pride ourselves in America as
producing the best product at the best price because of competitive
pressures that force us to do better, that force us to make better
products at lower cost, that force us to respond to someone else who is
attempting to accomplish the same goal and might have found a better
way to do it. It is that that has made this such a dynamic economy, one
that employs so many people gainfully, and one that provides such a
quality of living for so many Americans. That is the American way.
That system works everywhere except where there is a public monopoly,
a State-run government public monopoly. That public monopoly has
existed in public schools for far too long in far too many places.
There are vigorous private school and parochial school options
available in many parts of this country, but they are, sadly, lacking
in some of the areas where they are needed the most.
But more than that, the problem is not lack of alternatives. The
problem has been a system which leaves the lowest income and frequently
the minority students of this country living in our urban areas with
only one choice. And that choice, unfortunately, has been a failed
public school. They have been denied opportunities to gain skills to
enter the workplace. They have been denied opportunities to receive an
education that qualifies them to go on to college or university
education. They, therefore, are trapped, trapped in a system, a system
which says, ``We will do anything we can to maintain the status quo,
and yet at the same time we will prevent you from an alternative by
blocking any attempts to provide scholarships or vouchers or stipends
or support to assist you in paying the tuition if you choose to move
from a public school.''
We had that debate yesterday. It was a very instructive debate. I
thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. It is
bipartisan obviously, Democrat and Republican, one from Connecticut,
one from Indiana, joining forces. I appreciate the support we had from
a few of our Democratic colleagues across the aisle. Unfortunately, we
did not get enough to move on with this.
But there is a revolution going on in public education. It is a
healthy one. It is a healthy one because parents are suddenly rising up
and saying: We will not accept the platitudes and the promises that
come from the public school system when now 15 years after the report
``A Nation At Risk'', 15 years later, essentially, we see no dramatic
changes or no effective changes in many of our public schools. We will
not accept any longer the promises of a system which cannot overcome
its inertia and its bureaucracy, which cannot direct a majority of its
funds to educating students but yet eats up a majority of those funds
or a very substantial portion of those funds in administrative costs.
So this issue will be back. It will be back over and over again, and
it will arise not because two Senators chose to offer an amendment to
the D.C. appropriations bill; it will arise because constituents of
Members throughout the country will demand in town meetings and in
letters and in calls to their Congressmen and Senators, will demand
opportunities and alternatives. No longer will inner-city poor parents,
welfare parents and others living at or near the poverty line, allow
their children to be condemned to a lifetime of inability to succeed
because of the failure of the public school system to provide their
children with an education.
They will demand that their Congressmen and their Senators provide
opportunities, that their councilmen and their mayors and their school
systems either provide a sound education for their children or give
them the opportunity to seek that elsewhere. What parent would not do
that? What parent in this Senate body would not do that? We all would
because we have that choice. Minority children in many cases do not
have that choice.
Mr. President, I would like to say just one more thing before I yield
the floor. There was another quote in the Washington Post this morning
in an article covering this particular issue. That quote was a
disturbing one. There are boundaries to public discourse. There are
boundaries that we all try to live by, boundaries of civility and
honesty and good taste. When those limits are violated, it undermines
this institution and it makes democracy more difficult.
I think deep disagreements are possible without bitterness. I have
done my best to conduct my debates, including this school choice
debate, in that spirit. But today in the Washington Post a quote was
attributed to the Senator from Massachusetts. The Post has misquoted me
in the past, and I sincerely hope that they have misquoted the Senator
from Massachusetts. That quote reads:
Kennedy reminded Republicans that ``D.C. is not a test tube
for misguided Republican ideological experiments on
education. . ..Republicans in Congress should stop acting
like plantation masters and start treating the people of D.C.
with the respect they deserve.''
Mr. President, this is not just a racially offensive, irresponsible
charge; it is the total inversion of reality. It is the opponents of
school choice who want to require, compel, force minority children to
remain in substandard schools. It is the opponents of school choice who
want to confine poor minority children within the four walls of failed
institutions, and sometimes just the four walls because the roofs are
in disrepair.
Despite the infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars into this
system, much of it is wasted irresponsibly in not providing either
buildings or education to the children of the District of Columbia.
If there is a plantation here, it is a paternalistic plantation of
those who somehow justify restricting the choices and options of poor
children as a defense of their civil rights. As Alveda King said in
room 207 just off the Senate floor here a week ago: One of the greatest
civil rights issues for minority people today and for African-Americans
is those who deny young black children the opportunity to receive an
education. That condemns them, because of their income, because of
where they live geographically, to a failed public school that fails to
educate their children and condemns them to a lifetime of failure.
Let me suggest how we can respect the people of the District. We can
respect them to make good choices in the interests of their children.
We can respect them enough to give them options other than coercive
assignment to failed and dangerous schools. We can respect them with
resources, not with more lip service, platitudes, or promises. We can
respect the right of a parent, the knowledge of a parent, the caring of
a parent to make wise decisions for their children without the
paternalistic attitude that only Congress or only bureaucrats, only the
State, or only Government knows what is best for our children. This
charge that supporters of school choice are plantation masters is
deceptive and it is racist and it is hypocritical.
It is time for all of us, liberals and conservatives, to search our
conscience. There are Members of this body who voted against
scholarships for African-American children whose families have not
darkened the door of public schools for generations. There are Members
of the administration and this body, hours after those scholarships
were defeated, who attended back-to-school night at Sidwell Friends, a
school safe from leaking roofs and commonplace violence and failed
education that prevails in so much of the District's public schools.
Does not anyone see the irony, does not anyone see the hypocrisy,
does not anyone see the injustice in all of this?
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Amendments Nos. 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, and 1276
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I send a series of managers' amendments
to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer and ask unanimous
consent that they be considered en bloc and further ask unanimous
consent that the reading of these amendments be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
[[Page S10261]]
Mrs. BOXER. These amendments have been cleared on this side, and I
ask for their immediate adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], for
himself and Mrs. Boxer, proposes en bloc amendments numbered
1271 through 1273.
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], for Mr.
Brownback, proposes an amendment numbered 1274.
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for Mr. Moynihan,
proposes an amendment numbered 1275.
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for Mr. Byrd,
proposes an amendment numbered 1276.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 1271
(Purpose: A technical amendment on the part of the manager of the bill)
On page 3, line 9, after ``facilities,'' insert the
following: ``and for the administrative operating costs of
the Office of the Corrections Trustee,''.
____
amendment no. 1272
(Purpose: To make a technical amendment)
On page 4, line 4 and 5, strike ``Administrative Office of
the United States Courts'' and insert ``District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority''.
On page 4, lines 15 and 16, strike ``Administrative Office
of the United States Courts'' and insert ``District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority''.
____
amendment no. 1273
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting the management
teams and management reform plans authorized in the District of
Columbia Management Reform Act of 1997)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . It is the sense of the Senate that the management
teams authorized in the District of Columbia Management
Reform Act of 1997 should--
(1) take whatever steps are deemed necessary to identify
the structural, operational, administrative, and other
problems within the designated departments; and
(2) implement the management reform plans in accordance
with the provisions of the District of Columbia Management
Reform Act of 1997.
____
Amendment No. 1274
(Purpose: To ensure the effectiveness of the charter school program)
On page 9, line 17, strike ``$1,235,000'' and all that
follows through ``134);'' on line 24 and insert ``$3,376,000
from local funds (not including funds already made available
for District of Columbia public schools) for public charter
schools: Provided, That if the entirety of this allocation
has not been provided as payments to any public charter
schools currently in operation through the per pupil funding
formula, the funds shall be available for new public charter
schools on a per pupil basis: Provided further, That $400,000
be available to the District of Columbia Public Charter
School Board for administrative costs: Provided further, That
if the entirety of this allocation has not been provided as
payment to 1 or more public charter schools by May 1, 1998,
and remains unallocated, the funds shall be deposited into a
special revolving loan fund to be used solely to assist
existing or new public charter schools in meeting startup and
operating costs: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia Education Emergency Board of Trustees shall report
to Congress not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act on the capital needs of each public
charter school and whether the current per pupil funding
formula should reflect these needs: Provided further, That
until the District of Columbia Education Emergency Board of
Trustees reports to Congress as provided in the preceding
proviso, the District of Columbia Education Emergency Board
of Trustees shall take appropriate steps to provide public
charter schools with assistance to meet all capital expenses
in a manner that is equitable with respect assistance
provided to other District of Columbia public schools:
Provided further, That the District of Columbia Education
Emergency Board of Trustees shall report to Congress not
later than November 1, 1998, on the implementation of their
policy to give preference to newly created District of
Columbia public charter schools for surplus public school
property;''.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the
District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee for including the
Brownback-Lieberman-Coats D.C. charter school amendment in the
manager's amendment. I am also pleased that our amendment has
bipartisan support. These charter school provisions are critical to
ensure the success of charter schools in the District. Here in the
Nation's Capital, unfortunately, the progress of creating charter
schools has been slow. Legislation to create charter schools in the
District was enacted in the last Congress but the District currently
only has two charter schools.
I, along with the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee,
Senator Lieberman, had the opportunity to visit one of these charter
schools. The Options Public Charter School, which is just a few blocks
from Capitol Hill, is the perfect example of the innovative approach
charter schools bring to public education. It enrolls about 100 of the
D.C. public schools most at-risk students, grades 5 to 8, and works
closely with each student. As a result of this charter school
education, the high school graduation rate for the Options Public
Charter School is 75 percent compared to the approximate 50 percent
graduation rate in the D.C. public schools.
To make sure the D.C. public charter school system follows the
success of the Options Public Charter School and continues to grow, I,
along with Senator Lieberman and Senator Coats offered an amendment to
expand funding for the D.C. public charter schools from $1,235,000 to
$3,376,000 to ensure that current and future charter schools have
adequate funding. In fiscal year 1998, the District of Columbia could
have as many as 20 new charter schools. The $1.2 million appropriation
is based on the budget of the two current charter schools. This
amendment would also make sure there is sufficient funding for current
public schools which would like to convert to a charter school.
Our amendment would also require the D.C. education emergency board
of trustees to report to Congress on their implementation of policy
providing preference to new charter schools for surplus D.C. public
school property. It would also establish a revolving fund for D.C.
charter schools for funds not spent by May 1, 1997. Under the current
legislation, any remaining funds for charter schools must go into the
D.C. general fund by May 1, 1997. This provision in the amendment would
simply make sure that any funds appropriated for the D.C. charter
schools will only be spent on the D.C. charter schools. In addition,
the D.C. education emergency board of trustees would be required to
report to Congress on the capital needs of each charter school within
120 days of enactment and to take all possible steps to provide
assistance in capital costs for charter schools in the meantime.
I am pleased that our amendment is included in the manager's
amendment and has the support of our Democratic colleagues. The charter
school application process is underway in the District and new charter
schools could begin to operate as early as January. Out goal is to make
the Nation's Capital a shining city for the world to follow. One of the
key elements of achieving this goal is to provide high quality
education for the District's children. Charter schools in the District
will inject accountability into D.C. public education, more options for
parents and, most important, high quality education to the District's
children.
AMENDMENT NO. 1275
(Purpose: To designate the year 2000 as the Year of the National
Bicentennial Celebration for Washington, DC--the Nation's Capital)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . NATION'S CAPITAL BICENTENNIAL DESIGNATION ACT.
(a) Short Title; Findings; Purpose.--
(1) Short title.--This section may be cited as the
``Nation's Capital Bicentennial Designation Act''.
(2) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(A) the year 2000 will make the 200th anniversary of
Washington, D.C. as the Nation's permanent capital,
commencing when the Government moved from Philadelphia to the
Federal City;
(B) the framers of the Constitution provided for the
establishment of a special district to serve as ``the seat of
Government of the United States'';
(C) the site for the city was selected under the direction
of President George Washington, with construction initiated
in 1791;
(D) in submitting his design to Congress, Major Pierre
Charles L'Enfant included numerous parks, fountains, and
sweeping avenues designed to reflect a vision as grand and as
ambitious as the American experience itself;
(E) the capital city was named after President George
Washington to commemorate and celebrate his triumph in
building the Nation;
(F) as the seat of Government of the United States for
almost 200 years, the Nation's capital has been a center of
American culture and a world symbol of freedom and democracy;
[[Page S10262]]
(G) from Washington, D.C., President Abraham Lincoln
labored to preserve the Union and the Reverend Martin Luther
King, Jr. led an historic march that energized the civil
rights movement, reminding America of its promise of liberty
and justice for all; and
(H) The Government of the United States must continually
work to ensure that the Nation's capital is and remains the
shining city on the hill.
(3) Purpose.--The purposes of this section are to--
(A) designate the year 2000 as the ``Year of National
Bicentennial Celebration for Washington, D.C.--the Nation's
Capital''; and
(B) establish the Presidents' Day holiday in the year 2000
as a day of national celebration for the 200th anniversary of
Washington, D.C.
(b) Nation's Capital National Bicentennial.--
(1) In general.--The year 2000 is designated as the ``Year
of the National Bicentennial Celebration for Washington,
D.C.--the Nation's Capital'' and the Presidents' Day Federal
holiday in the year 2000 is designated as a day of national
celebration for the 200th anniversary of Washington, D.C.
(2) Sense of the senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that all Federal entities should coordinate with and assist
the Nation's Capital Bicentennial Celebration, a nonprofit
501(c)(3) entity, organized and operating pursuant to the
laws of the District of Columbia, to ensure the success of
events and projects undertaken to renew and celebrate the
bicentennial of the establishment of Washington, D.C. as the
Nation's capital.
____
Amendment No. 1276
(Purpose: To establish a remedial education pilot program in the
District of Columbia in the District of Columbia public schools)
On page 49, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
Sec. 148. $4,000,000 from local funds shall be available
for the establishment of a remedial education pilot program
in the District of Columbia public school system to remain
available through fiscal year 1999, of which $3,000,000 shall
be used to create a one-year pilot program for the
implementation of a remedial education program in reading and
mathematics for the 3 lowest achieving elementary schools in
the District of Columbia public school system (as to be
determined by the District of Columbia public school system's
Board of Education) and the training of teachers in
remediation instruction at the targeted schools and
$1,000,000 shall be used to establish a continuing education
program for all teachers in the District of Columbia public
school system. The General Accounting Office shall report to
Congress on the effectiveness of the pilot program funded by
this section at the end of fiscal year 1999.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, and 1276) en bloc
were agreed to.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote scheduled
at 12:15 now occur at 12:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. For the interest of all Members, there has been a meeting
at the White House that went a little over time and there are a number
of Members involved. They will be here by 12:30, so the vote will be at
12:30.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business, notwithstanding the upcoming vote, for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________