[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8729-H8737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2607, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 APPROPRIATIONS, MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM, AND EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 
                                  1998

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 264 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 264

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2607) 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 first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall 
     be considered as read. The amendment printed in part 1 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the 
     Committee of the Whole. Points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 or 
     6 of rule XXI are waived. No further amendment shall be in 
     order except those printed in part 2 of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each further amendment may be considered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against amendments printed 
     in the report are waived. The Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee

[[Page H8730]]

     shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with 
     such further amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, TX [Mr. Frost], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 2607, the District of Columbia appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1998. The rule provides for 1 hour of general 
debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Appropriations, waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, and provides that the amendment printed in 
part 1 of the Committee on Rules report shall be considered as adopted.
  The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 and clause 6 of rule XXI 
regarding unauthorized appropriations, legislative provisions, and 
reappropriations in appropriations bills.
  The rule provides for consideration of only those amendments printed 
in part 2 of the Committee on Rules report, by the Member designated, 
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified, 
shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, 
and shall not be subject to a division of the question. All points of 
order against the amendments are waived.
  The rule also grants the authority to the chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole to postpone recorded votes on amendments and to reduce the 
voting time on amendments to 5 minutes provided that the first vote in 
a series is not less than 15 minutes.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Congress passed the National 
Capital Revitalization Act which transferred certain State functions to 
the Federal Government and eliminated the traditional Federal payment. 
The committee's bill reflects those actions, providing for a total of 
$828 million in Federal funds, including funds to provide pay raises to 
police officers, firefighters, and teachers.
  Mr. Speaker, of all the troubles and problems facing our Nation's 
Capital, I believe the most sad and distressing is in the school 
system. The district's children, especially those at the lower end of 
the economic spectrum, are having their futures stolen from them by a 
failed education system that eats up over half a billion dollars and 
spends more per student than schools offering a far better education. 
In the D.C. school system, money is not the problem.
  Education is first, last and always, Mr. Speaker, about children. 
Children are the future of the Nation. That is why we must do whatever 
it takes to improve the education system here. While I believe that 
parents and local communities can best solve our education problems, 
this is our Nation's Capital. This Congress has the obligation to step 
in and do what is right.
  Every child in America has the right to a safe, drug-free environment 
in which to learn. That is all too often an unrealized dream for 
children in this city. We must put parents at the head of the line when 
it comes to making decisions about education, not government 
bureaucrats or union bosses. Most important, every child, regardless of 
income, should receive a quality education. Not one should be left 
behind because of where she or he lives or because her parents' 
financial situation is not that strong.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is first and foremost prochild because it 
supports education. Opposition to the education section of this bill 
cannot be about money. The committee bill spends more on the D.C. 
public school system than actually was requested by the city. Instead, 
the opposition to the parental choice provisions in the bill are driven 
by politics and ideology.
  It is sad that there are special interests that will do anything to 
block parental choice. Where we should expect overwhelming support for 
bold experiments to empower parents to give their children the best 
education possible, we get extremism in defense of a failed 
bureaucracy. Well, I believe that we owe it to children starting in 
this city to give them a better opportunity for a brighter future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to look beyond 
the blinders of special interest ideology and support both the rule and 
the committee bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule gives the Members of this House an opportunity 
to do the right thing for the residents of the District of Columbia. 
The rule provides Members the opportunity to vote for a fair deal for 
the District and its citizens and to reject the unfair bill reported 
from the committee. The Moran substitute deserves the support of the 
House, and because the majority has made this substitute in order, I 
will support the rule. But Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the bill 
unless it is amended by the Moran substitute.
  Because of the deplorable financial condition this city was in 2 
years ago, the Congress and the President have sought through tough 
measures to bring about drastic change. But in doing so, I fear that 
the residents of the District of Columbia have been denied democratic 
representation. The Mayor, the council, and the school board have been 
effectively removed as voices in or for the city. I am not a defender 
of the old order, but at the same time I cannot support what the 
Republican majority has proposed as a remedy.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Republican majority wants to revoke home rule for 
the District, then the Republican majority ought to deal straight with 
the residents of this city instead of micromanaging every aspect of the 
city's government. Using the city as a Petri dish for experimentation 
in Republican social engineering is unacceptable. I urge every Member 
to reject the committee bill and support the Moran substitute.

  There are many reasons why Members should oppose the committee bill, 
not the least of which is inclusion of $7 million for a school voucher 
program. The state of affairs in the schools of this city is sorry. We 
have all read the papers and know what is going on. But, Mr. Speaker, 
taking $7 million away from the public schools to provide scholarships 
for poor students to attend parochial and private schools will not 
repair the roofs and buy the books for the hundreds of students who 
will be left in the classrooms of the public schools.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Republican majority is determined to implement 
school vouchers as an educational alternative to public schools in this 
country, I call upon them and the supporters of vouchers to bring out a 
bill and let us debate it fair and square. Do not use the kids in the 
District to further their social agenda and provide them with photo 
ops.
  This bill seeks to completely revamp the medical malpractice system 
in the District of Columbia and to cap damages for injury at $250,000. 
Mr. Speaker, the medical malpractice system in the District is not in 
any way related to providing the funding for the operations of the 
government and services of this city in fiscal year 1998. How the 
Republican majority thinks the inclusion of this 16-page title will 
make this government work more effectively for the benefit of the 
citizens of this city is beyond my understanding. This provision is 
clearly irrelevant to the appropriations process and deserves to be 
stricken from the bill. However, I should point out to my colleagues 
that the only opportunity Members will have to strike this provision is 
by voting for the Moran substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule also makes in order an important amendment 
which will be offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. The 
Republican majority has included in the bill a provision which waives 
the Davis-Bacon

[[Page H8731]]

prevailing wage standards for school construction projects. The Sabo 
amendment seeks to strike that provision and deserves the support of 
the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill which, if the House supports the 
Moran substitute and the Sabo amendment, can be made acceptable. The 
people of the District do not deserve the bill reported by the 
Committee on Appropriations. They want their city to work for the 
benefit of its residents and the many millions of visitors it receives 
each year. I think the Congress should help the city recover, not use 
it to further the Republican social agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], my very good friend and fellow 
Californian.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the D.C. 
appropriations bill, and first of all I would like to commend the 
chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor]. The gentleman 
underwent a stroke, and he fought through a very difficult situation, 
and he is back to 100 percent now, but during that time he persevered.
  I would like to go through a couple of things. My colleague on the 
other side said this is a bad bill. The reason that the Democrats do 
not like this bill is because it is the unions that support their 
particular issues. The unions, with the voucher system, and the unions 
with Davis-Bacon, both hurt, and both are opposed by the National 
School Board Association and the majority of the residents in every 
category.
  Now, the District of Columbia only has about 14 percent Republicans, 
yet over 60 percent of the parents with school age children in the 
District support removing Davis-Bacon, which inflates the cost of 
construction between 20 and 30 percent. Now, if they really care about 
children, like the other side purports all the time, they will do this 
for the children, waive Davis-Bacon, because it saves over 20 percent.
  The average age of a school in Washington, DC is 86 years. They had 
trouble even getting the roofs repaired so that the children could go 
to school this year. There are safety hazards. We need the dollars to 
be infused after generations of neglect in the D.C. school system. That 
is why the residents of Washington, DC, want to waive the Davis-Bacon 
Act.
  The bill gives D.C. schools the authority to waive the act. It does 
not do anything with Davis-Bacon. It just gives Washington the right to 
waive the act themselves. Congress does not do that. But it reduces the 
inflationary cost if they do that and they have chosen that exact 
thing. The National School Boards Association supports this provision.
  The study by Dr. Thiebolt found that States with Davis-Bacon laws pay 
13 percent more for their classrooms than the 20 States without them. 
Yet I say to my colleague that just spoke, who is working with the DNC, 
the unions have, time after time, and time again, infused illegal money 
into the campaigns of Democrats. That is under investigation right now. 
Of course, they do not want this. This is their power base, both in 
construction and with the teachers unions. They do not want it.
  My wife is an elementary school principal with a doctorate degree. 
The last thing we want to do is hurt public education, but this program 
is needed. Of the over 20 Members of Congress that live in the D.C. 
area, not a single one have their students in public schools. They put 
them in private schools. Why? There are good teachers in Washington, 
DC, and there are some good schoolhouses as well, but the great 
majority are failing and the teachers are not credentialed. I would not 
put my children here. I do not think many of my colleagues would 
either.
  All we are asking for is an opportunity for these parents to have 
their children go into a school that is free of drugs, that is free of 
crime, where they have a shot at the 21st century. That is not the case 
now, Mr. Speaker. That is why the gentleman from North Carolina, in 
this bill, has done everything he can to help the schools.
  Now, if the other side really wants to help the children instead of 
their union bosses and support the DNC and their fundraising, then they 
will support this. They say this is a terrible bill. What they mean to 
say is it is terrible against the unions, their big supporters.
  I would say that time and time again we have our groups that are like 
a domino effect. We feel that if something passes, that it will domino 
the rest of the issues that we support. And I am sure that that is what 
it is with the unions and Davis-Bacon, but this is an emergency 
situation, Mr. Speaker, an emergency situation with schoolhouses that 
are over 86 years old.
  The schoolchildren have almost zero chance at the American dream. 
This is a chance where we can help them instead of helping the unions 
for once. And, again, it does not waive Davis-Bacon, it just gives the 
city the right to waive it because it saves between 20 and 30 percent 
in construction costs. That is not asking too much, I do not think. Yet 
that is why my colleague says this is a terrible bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman on the other side seems to be a little confused, and I 
can understand that because it is difficult to follow all these things, 
but I am not affiliated with the DNC. I am chairman of the Democratic 
Congressional Campaign Committee.
  Also, I would point out to my friend on the other side that there has 
been one conviction of a sitting Member of Congress during this session 
for campaign violations. It was a Republican Member, who pleaded guilty 
to accepting over $200,000 in illegal corporate contributions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today we will have before us an 
appropriation bill that is at odds with our core beliefs. It takes the 
tough, fiscally responsible work of a district that is not our own, 
presided over by a no-nonsense control board, and tears it up.
  No amount of rhetoric about the constitutional obligation to run, or 
is it run over, the Nation's capital will work this time, not when the 
control board and the city have submitted a budget that uses almost all 
its small surplus for deficit reduction. No righteous rhetoric will 
explain some 60 instances of legislating on an appropriation in fine 
detail, some of it quickly altered to appropriation language, but just 
as devastating to the work of the control board and the city.
  No amount of crocodile tears for the District's children, from 
Members with a long history of not supporting these children or 
District bills for these children will make credible the ideological 
baggage, especially vouchers, they have stuffed into this bill.
  Here are five questions we should ask ourselves as we hear today's 
debate.
  One. Ask yourselves: ``If my District had voted 89 percent against 
vouchers in a referendum, would I then vote for vouchers on the basis 
of manipulative polls that ask poor people and ministers not whether 
they desire vouchers for public money but whether they would like some 
free money for scholarships.'' It is a scam on poor people and I resent 
it.
  If my colleagues are from one of the many States that have turned 
down vouchers, they must vote for the substitute. They should know who 
they are: New York, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Idaho, Maryland, 
Washington State, Missouri, Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Utah, 
Colorado.
  The so-called free ``scholarships'' or vouchers come from the 
District's own meager surplus funds. The District's public schools 
desperately need every cent of public money. Every child in the 
District could have a place in an after school program with the $7 
million that would go to private and religious schools in the District, 
Maryland, and Virginia. Think of what that money would do for our kids' 
education and for elimination of juvenile crime in this city.
  Two. Will it help or hurt the District if we prevent a contract for a 
state-of-the-art financial management system to be awarded on a 
competitive basis after years of delay?
  Should the Congress override all of the experts who advise that the 
upgrade of the present nonfunctional system is unworkable and wasteful? 
Is

[[Page H8732]]

this body prepared to take responsibility for the serious delay in the 
congressionally mandated management and financial reforms that will 
result from preventing the contract?
  Three. Should Congress cancel a contract for the annual audit now in 
progress that was won through a competitive bid about which no question 
whatsoever has been raised?
  Four. Will it help or hurt the District's fragile recovery to cancel 
the city's authority to eliminate its accumulated deficit using exactly 
the same approach that was necessary to bring New York and Philadelphia 
out of insolvency? Why would we want to retract this authority when we 
just gave it to the control board in the Balanced Budget Act?
  Five. Does Congress want to keep the control board from using self-
generated interest to do studies, such as those that are the basis for 
wholesale reform of the police department and the school system now in 
progress?
  I believe my colleagues will be puzzled by these provisions. They 
reveal only the tip of a volcano of an appropriation that is 
dangerously capricious.
  I do not believe that a substitute for an entire appropriation bill 
has ever been offered in 23 years of home rule. When the substitute is 
copied from the fiscally conservative bill of a conservative North 
Carolina Senator that even has my support, Members perhaps get a sense 
of how radically damaging to my constituents, how arbitrary the bill 
before us is.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this bill and to vote for the rule so 
we can vote for the Moran substitute that rejects this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to 
my friend, and let me say that I have the highest regard for the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. She and I have worked 
together on a wide range of issues.
  I do not seek to stand here and speak as the greatest authority on 
the District of Columbia. I do happen to reside here when I am in 
Washington, DC. But I think that it is important for us to look at a 
couple of facts.
  First of all, District voters have never actually voted on a voucher 
or scholarship referendum. In 1981, which is over a decade and a half 
ago, voters rejected a referendum that would have permitted tax credits 
for educational expenses, but this is not actually a tax credit, 
because a tax credit would primarily help those who pay taxes and are 
generally not poor. In contrast, the scholarship legislation is 
targeted at children from low-income families.
  In addition, I think it is important for us to recognize that an 
awful lot has changed since 1981, including public opinion on a wide 
range of issues. Polls show that parental choice enjoys strong support 
in the District of Columbia, especially among African-Americans. There 
was a recent poll that was conducted of District residents showing that 
44 percent favor scholarships while only 31 percent oppose them, and 
among African-Americans support outweighs opposition by a margin of 48 
to 29.
  A poll conducted by the Joint Center for Political and Economic 
Studies, an African-American think tank that opposes school choice, 
found that 57 percent of African-Americans actually support parental 
choice.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in the last session of Congress our friends on 
the Republican side of the aisle made clear that they were willing to 
shut down all of Government in order to get what they wanted on certain 
ideological issues. This year it appears that they have more modest 
goals and are simply talking about shutting down or severely crippling 
only portions of Government if they do not get their way.
  For instance, many of them would like to hold hostage the Labor, 
Health, and Education appropriation bill unless they get their way on 
school testing. A number of them have said publicly they are willing to 
shut down the foreign operations appropriation bill unless they get 
their way on Mexico City policy and abortion. A number of others have 
indicated they would just as soon shut down the Interior appropriation 
bill unless they get their way so they can continue to see Yellowstone 
polluted and continue to see redwoods cut in California. And now we see 
that a significant number indicate to the press that they are willing 
to hold hostage the District of Columbia bill for the next year unless 
they get their way on vouchers.

                              {time}  1000

  I would simply suggest that the time for that is past. We are now 1 
week into the new fiscal year. We ought to be resolving differences, 
not continuing to exacerbate them. That is why I support this rule, 
because it gives us an opportunity to deal with this bill in the 
fastest way possible.
  I would hope that after the rule passes, that we pass the Moran 
amendment, which corrects a wide variety of gross overreaches by this 
Congress.
  The Moran amendment would, essentially, simply have the House adopt 
the House version of the D.C. appropriations bill, which is brought to 
the House by Senator Faircloth. He is not, as my colleagues know, 
exactly a left wing liberal. I think conservatives are safe with him. 
And it just seems to me that that is the best way to approach this 
issue if we want to do our duty by the District and if we want to get 
all of our business done across the board.
  I would invite my colleagues' attention to the Washington Post 
editorial this morning, which says as follows:

       The House of Representatives should not dishonor itself 
     today by adopting the long list of wide-ranging riders tacked 
     onto the D.C. appropriations bill by the subcommittee.

  I agree with that editorial. I think that the proper course is to 
support this rule and then to support the Moran amendment so that we 
can overcome Congress's efforts to try to use Washington, DC, as a 
social experiment for pet ideas of right wing think tanks around the 
country.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, besides thanking the chairman, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], there is another gentleman 
that should be thanked, and that is General Becton. General Becton has 
taken on an enormous job in saving the schools in Washington, DC. He 
did so where he came before.
  But I would say that, speaking to the bill itself, who supports 
removing Davis-Bacon? Sixty-five percent support allowing D.C. 
officials to repair the D.C. schools without mandating higher Federal 
wages, 53 percent of union households support it, 60 percent of the 
Democrats in the District agree, 68 percent agree it is more important 
to remove Davis-Bacon, and 56 percent give D.C. schools a D or an F. It 
is time, and it is an emergency.
  Here is what ``20/20'' said: ``That's the argument: We need Davis-
Bacon to guarantee good wages to make sure Government buildings are 
well-built. Sounds logical, 'til you realize that most buildings in 
America are not Government-built buildings. In fact, three-fourths of 
construction is private work. Are these buildings lower quality than 
Government buildings? Of course not. They may be better built. In most 
American life, we do quite well without Government setting wages and 
prices.'' That is John Stossel and ``20/20.''
  We would also say that, who supports it? The National School Board 
Association, for vouchers and for both removing Davis-Bacon, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the Associated Builders and Contractors.
  D.C. Board chairman Dr. Andrew Brimmer told the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce that, ``Waiving the Davis-Bacon Act would 
be helpful in our ability to attract donated services.'' And 65 percent 
of D.C. residents support this provision.
  Florida eliminated its State Davis-Bacon law in 1974 for schools. 
They saved 15 percent. Kentucky, likewise, they reinstated it and 
increased their construction cost by $35 million. Ohio is saving 
millions.
  We ask for the support of the opportunity scholarships and removal of 
Davis-Bacon and support the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] 
for yielding me the time.
  I rise in support of this rule. The Committee on Rules yesterday 
considered a number of amendments to the District of Columbia 
Appropriations

[[Page H8733]]

Act. There was an amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dixon], who had been the chair of this D.C. Appropriations Act 
that would have struck the vouchers provision. He made an eloquent 
argument in the full Committee on Appropriations against that 
provision.
  There was an amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Horn] that limited the application of the bill's voucher provision to 
only schools located within the District of Columbia.
  There was an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Meek] to correct the provisions that condition funding for the 
University of the District of Columbia School of Law. And they are 
receiving accreditation next year by the American Bar Association.
  There was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] to strike the provisions in the bill that reopen Pennsylvania 
Avenue. There was an amendment that I sought to offer that would have 
struck a number of provisions through which the Committee on 
Appropriations was attempting to micromanage the District of Columbia 
government, and particularly micromanaging its financial management 
system, which is essential to getting the D.C. government back on its 
feet. But none of these amendments were made in order.
  Yet, this is a fair rule because it has made in order a substitute 
amendment that we will offer. This substitute amendment will strike all 
of the provisions included in the House version of the D.C. 
Appropriations Act except the provisions that grant a pay raise to 
public safety employees.
  In its place, my amendment will substitute the version of the D.C. 
Appropriations Act that was drafted by the, may I say, conservative 
Republican Senator from North Carolina, and it was approved by a nearly 
unanimous Senate Committee on Appropriations and passed out of the 
other body last night.
  That is what we want to do. It incorporates the consensus budget from 
the Control Board, the Mayor, D.C. City Council. We think that is the 
way to go. It leaves these kinds of legislative decisions to the 
legislative committee. This is a fair rule because this substitute 
amendment incorporates all the amendments that Democrats and 
Republicans sought to offer in the Committee on Rules.
  The substitute will strike provisions in the bill that give a sole-
source contract for the District's financial management system to a 
vendor that has not even bid for it. The vendor does not want it, and 
yet it would insist that they take it and take it away from a vendor 
that, in fact, was approved and has the capability and qualifications 
to carry out the financial management system that the city desperately 
needs.
  It will strike the provisions of the bill that prohibit private 
companies from operating helicopter tours over the Nation's Capitol. 
Maybe this is a good idea, but it is not up to us to make those kinds 
of decisions.
  It will ensure that no vouchers are made for the schools outside of 
the District of Columbia. In fact, it will ensure that no voucher 
provision is enacted, because this is a poison pill, it is a killer 
amendment. If it is included, the bill will be vetoed.
  My substitute amendment will ensure that the budget submitted by the 
District's governing bodies, the governing bodies that Congress set up 
in terms of the Financial Control Board, a budget that is balanced 1 
year earlier than required, just exactly what we asked them to do, a 
budget that reduces the District's operating deficit by two-thirds, and 
it cuts spending from last year.
  That bill deserves to be signed into law. If this substitute 
amendment is approved, that bill will be signed into law. This is a 
modified closed rule that does limit debate and it limits our freedom 
to offer amendments, yet it is a fair rule. It allows Members to make a 
fundamental choice as to whether they are going to allow the District's 
government and the congressionally created budget process to work or 
whether they are going to continue to try to micromanage the District 
of Columbia and make this, the smallest of the 13 appropriations bills, 
one of the most controversial and contentious.
  I support the rule, and I support the substitute that I will be 
offering pursuant to it. I hope every Member will join me in supporting 
this rule and in supporting my substitute amendment and, in fact, 
reaffirming the very concept that the other side has been urging, de-
evolution: Give power back to the people at the local level. Let them 
make the decisions that they are entitled to make under a democratic 
process. I urge my colleagues very strongly not only to support this 
rule, but to support the amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran] also for his very strong support of this bipartisan rule, which 
I am happy to say that we have been able to work out.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis], chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee on Government 
Reform and Oversight and my very dear friend.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule as well. It is not 
perfect, but with a bill like this within so many different agendas, it 
is difficult to frame them.
  I am in a bit of a bind because, on the one hand, I certainly have 
supported the scholarship program, support and spoke for it the last 
time, support the Davis-Bacon repeal, and yet there are other pieces of 
this bill that I find really contrary to what we have been trying to do 
at our committee level. But we will sort this out as it moves, and 
there are a number of amendments that we will have a chance to address.
  I think the legislative process, though, has to move along. It has 
many steps along the way, and at each one of these steps changes can be 
made. But if he were to terminate this process, defeat this rule, 
defeat this bill in whatever form today, and send it back, we are 
playing a very dangerous game.
  Brinkmanship like this in the past has resulted in the Government 
closing down, the District of Columbia government closing down, through 
no fault of their own, because of Congress' inability to act. It is 
unnecessary, because instead of playing beat-the-clock, with one 
continuing resolution after another, it is far more prudent to move the 
process along after making whatever changes are possible at this time.
  With the District of Columbia appropriations bill, there are other 
reasons as well for advancing to the next stage of the legislative 
process. We all know the D.C. Revitalization Act, which passed the 
Congress as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Medicaid changes 
and tax incentives were included as well in that enactment and in the 
equally historic Tax Reform Act of 1997.
  To have enacted such significant reforms, and these were the most 
significant reforms enacted in the District of Columbia in the last 25 
years, and to see them signed by the President is a legislative 
accomplishment we can all take pride in helping to achieve.
  With patience and perseverance, the reforms that we have enacted for 
the District of Columbia have begun to have their intended effect. In 
fact, the President's proposals, which we used as the starting point 
for our Revitalization Act, were made possible by the previous 
effective measures which Congress had taken in establishing the 
District of Columbia Control Board.
  We now have a rare opportunity, sanctioned by both Congress and the 
White House, to restructure and improve the complex relationship 
between the Federal Government and the Nation's Capital. But time is of 
the essence, and we are at a moment of truth.
  Many of the issues addressed in the D.C. Revitalization Act are 
particularly urgent and time sensitive. To take just one example, a 
trustee must be up and running to help establish reforms in the 
District's prison system. Just last week, the court-appointed monitor 
said of the medium-security security facility at Lorton, ``It has 
deteriorated to a level of depravity that is unparalleled in its 
troubled history.''
  Many of the changes this Congress enacted for the Nation's Capital 
simply cannot be implemented within the limited framework of a 
continuing resolution. They can only be achieved within the framework 
of a duly enacted budget.
  I must respectfully remind my colleagues that we are talking about an

[[Page H8734]]

actual living and breathing city. It is tragic enough when Congress 
reaches an impasse in consideration of a budget for one of our 
executive departments, but if we are unable to enact a budget for the 
Nation's Capital, that real city which exists just beyond the monuments 
is placed at a grave risk of immediate harm. And when you consider most 
of the District's budget consists of self-generated funds, it makes the 
spectacle of congressional delay even more difficult to explain.
  Some of us have differences with various sections of the bill before 
us. Many have reservations which I share. But I appeal to all of my 
colleagues, as chairman of the authorizing subcommittee for the 
District, to join me in voting for this bill in its final form, 
whatever it may take today, letting it pass to the next phase of the 
legislative process. There really is no alternative to that.
  If I can take another minute to talk about the procurement in terms 
of the management reforms and the District's financial management 
system, there has been a duly authorized procurement. It has been 
competed widely and openly. It was won fairly. Most of the work is 
under a fixed-cost arrangement. A very small portion of the work is 
under an hourly billing arrangement. But the total hours are capped.
  A company previously in a previous version, I think we will be taking 
care of the manager's version today, that was going to be earmarked, is 
not interested in the business and does not want the business. I think 
the manager's amendment on this is absolutely essential if we are to 
move ahead.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the rule. And, hopefully, the Moran 
amendment will be passed following this rule.
  This rule has several things in it with which I do not agree. But it 
has a lot of good things in it, this particular rule does. With the 
Moran amendment passing, it certainly will clear up, in my mind and for 
the people I represent, the District of Columbia's dilemma. But I 
cannot take my seat unless I say a word or two about this process, 
which at many times is not a good one.
  I had an amendment before the Committee on Rules yesterday concerning 
the University of the District of Columbia's Law School. I was given 
permission to bring that rule to the floor. I was given permission to 
have 10 minutes for debate. And through some kind of chicanery, it did 
not reach here this morning.
  I want this Congress to understand that I shoot from the hip and will 
always shoot from the hip, I deal straightforward, and some of the 
kinds of intramural kinds of gymnastics I see here I do not appreciate.

                              {time}  1015

  But I can say to my colleagues that I hope that this rule will pass 
and that the Moran amendment will follow, in spite of some of the 
arcane kinds of methodologies that some of my colleagues use to fight 
what they do not want to see. Now, that applies to both parties, both 
Democrat and Republican. Do not try that with Carrie Meek.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very good 
friend, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], a hard-working member 
of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California and a 
former Kansas native. We miss the gentleman up there in the State of 
Kansas, by the way.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very fair rule. It does limit the 
number of amendments, but we do have, I think, an opportunity to deal 
with the issues that are contentious in this legislation.
  Frankly, the District of Columbia is in need of some change. If we 
look at the bureaucracy, it seems very heavy. It is laden with 
inefficiency. If we look at some of the political motivations that have 
been behind the programs that have been experimented with, they seem to 
be liberal to most of America.
  One of the problems that is very common here is the welfare benefits 
inside the District of Columbia are much higher than any welfare 
benefits in the surrounding area. There needs to be some adjustment 
down.
  In the area of safety, many of the people feel unsafe in Washington, 
D.C. It has often been referred to as the murder capital of America, 
rather than the Capital of the United States, and that is sad. So we do 
need to have some changes to the police. We found out recently that 90 
percent of the arrests are made by 10 percent of the police force. So 
there need to be some changes in the police department, some incentives 
for them to be on the street, in the communities, in the neighborhoods. 
This incentive is in the D.C. appropriations bill.
  We also have a way of dealing with the degenerating schools in the 
District of Columbia by allowing a limited voucher program to take the 
most difficult situations in education, the children that are having 
the least hope, that are getting the worst grades, and in a poverty 
level, and allow them the opportunity with this voucher to have the 
same ability to go to a private school like the Vice President and the 
President have. They can take these vouchers and try to increase their 
ability to compete in the employment market in the future. So it deals 
with education.
  This bill also deals with abortion. A majority of Americans do not 
want to have their tax dollars coming to Washington, D.C. to fund 
someone else's abortion. The bill that we have here will prohibit that. 
It will also prohibit funding of domestic relationships.
  There are a myriad of other changes that are necessary, I believe, 
for us to attempt for the District of Columbia to try to move this into 
the shining city that we would like to see sitting here on the Hill.
  I think what we have is an opportunity for the proponents of these 
new ideas to come up and defend the status quo, to strike down these 
new ideas. Through an amendment, they could repeal a lot of initiatives 
that we have to change the way life is going here in the District of 
Columbia, to try to reclaim areas of this city, to try to make tax 
incentives to bring businesses and new people into the area.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the 
D.C. appropriations bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could quote from today's Washington 
Post editorial: This bill shows the House at its worst. The bill has 
been loaded down with heavy ideological and political baggage that 
ultimately may doom the city's $4.2 billion budget if it reaches the 
White House. There is a good chance that the school voucher add-on to 
the appropriations bill will invite a Presidential veto. The House of 
Representatives need not do this to the Nation's Capital or to itself.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats have made education a top priority this 
Congress, and our emphasis has been on improving public schools, 
including raising educational standards and addressing infrastructure 
needs. My concern is that the Republican leadership, after trying to 
make the deepest education cuts in history last year, are now 
emphasizing vouchers to pay for private schools as a way to reform our 
education system.
  In my opinion, vouchers will not help public schools; just the 
opposite. They will drain away resources that could be used to improve 
public school standards and rebuild crumbling or overcrowded schools.
  The Republican leadership's latest experiment with vouchers will be 
considered today as part of this bill. As much as $45 million in 
Federal funds will be made available for pay for private education for 
only 3 percent of the District of Columbia students. This GOP voucher 
plan provides a select few D.C. public school students, about 2,000, 
with vouchers, while providing no answers for the 76,000 students left 
behind in the D.C. public schools. The D.C. public schools, like all of 
America's schools, need to be improved, not abandoned. The GOP voucher 
plan is nothing but a strategy of failure, of giving up on the Nation's 
public schools here and throughout this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and 
support the Moran substitute. Let us take out

[[Page H8735]]

the voucher program and all of the other ideological and political 
baggage that hurts the District of Columbia and will delay passage of 
this appropriation bill that is so vital to the city of Washington's 
future.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill. The headline in 
the Washington Post editorial page this morning reads, and I quote: 
``The House at Its Worst on D.C.'' ``Republican and Democratic Members 
ought to be embarrassed even to consider such a small-minded measure on 
the House floor.''
  It certainly is the truth. For after proposing the biggest cuts in 
education in this Nation's history, after attempting to shut down the 
Department of Education, the Republican majority is now trying to end 
public education in this country.
  Education is the single-most important issue that faces us today. It 
is education that opens the doors for opportunity in our society. It is 
education that levels the playing field, provides every single American 
child with the opportunity to make the most of his or her God-given 
talents. Mr. Speaker, 89 percent of American students attend public 
schools, and our schools need fixing. They have serious problems, and 
we all know that.
  But the Republican voucher plan, an experimental plan, would do 
nothing to improve the D.C. schools. It would drain precious taxpayer 
funds from these schools and put money into private schools, money that 
could be used to repair leaky roofs, buy new computers and books.
  We need to spend our time focused on improving public schools for all 
of our children, not providing an out for a select few which will 
further degrade educational equality for those who remain in the 
system. Mr. Speaker, 2,000 kids. What about the 76,000 other children?
  Proponents of vouchers argue that they will enable poor families to 
have the same choice of school as wealthy ones. This is a false 
promise. Not only do vouchers weaken the public schools by siphoning 
off funds, they typically do not even cover the high cost of tuition at 
private schools.
  Example: The bill would provide a D.C. student with $3,200 toward 
tuition at a private school, yet this does not come close to paying for 
tuition at the District's most prestigious schools, Georgetown Day 
School, Sidwell Friends cost $11,000. Vouchers will not solve the 
problems in our public schools; they will create new ones.
  Speaker Gingrich wants to test this program on children who live here 
in the Nation's Capital. It is an experiment, an experiment that they 
want to try to foist on this entire country. I have a message for the 
Speaker. Our children are not guinea pigs and the American public 
understands that. They do not want to see taxpayer dollars put into 
private education, and that is a poll number by 54 to 39 percent. The 
American public says no to taking taxpayers' dollars and putting them 
into private education. Democrats are not going to allow the experiment 
to go forward; neither will be American public.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Let us work to find 
ways in which we can rebuild America's schools, not to destroy them.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My very good friend from Connecticut just quoted the town crier of 
liberalism, the Washington Post, and I would like to actually share a 
little bit of a Post editorial that was carried about 10 days ago in 
which they said:

       A modest voucher experiment might help energize the public 
     schools. It won't replace them. People who think of vouchers 
     as a way somehow of evading the responsibility for public 
     education are blowing smoke. And such a program, we believe, 
     will not do harm to the system or by implication suggest that 
     it is a permanent loser. As we say, the schools in this city 
     do not present one solid, bleak picture such as the political 
     critics somehow paint. The point, the hope, would be that 
     such an experiment could be one small part of the effort 
     being undertaken with vigor and optimism by the new school 
     team to bring the District system to a higher, more even 
     standard of achievement, one that reflects the quality of our 
     best schools, which are the models.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman 
from San Diego, CA [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
DeLauro], states her own opinion as fact, and I would say that the 
gentlewoman is factually challenged in the fact that it does not go 
just to private schools, the opportunity scholarship. If a parent in 
the D.C. school system finds that there is an unsafe school where it 
does not offer a fair education, then that parent, like anyone that 
would want their child to get a good education.
  Second, the gentlewoman says Republicans cut education. Mr. Speaker, 
$10 billion we saved. We cut the President's direct lending program out 
of bureaucracy, $10 billion, because it inflated $5 billion capped at 
10 percent, but yet we increase scholarships by 50 percent, we put 
money into the IDEA program for special education, we increased the 
Pell grant to the highest level ever, we increased Eisenhower grants 
for teacher training. What we cut is the liberals' precious 
bureaucracy. That is the same thing that they are trying to do here, is 
fight for the unions. We are trying to fight for the children.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have been listening to the debate on TV and I was reminded that 
H.I. Hayakawa is no longer in the Chamber, but seemed to be in language 
and thought and action, all the snarl and pearl words that were being 
thrown back and forth here.
  I noticed with interest my friend from California cited the 
Washington Post about this great experiment. What the Washington Post 
says and fails to say is that if 2,000 children get vouchers, what 
happens to the other 76,000?
  There is no doubt that there are good public education schools. There 
is no doubt that there are good schools in our country, and in fact, we 
are going to talk about some that are good in Washington, DC. And there 
is no doubt that there are private schools in this country and in 
Washington DC, that are good. But the issue is, What happens to these 
kids that are left behind?
  Mr. Speaker, 2,000 out of 76,000 is a noble experiment, but what does 
it prove? We already know that there are problems in public education. 
We already know that there are some success stories both in the private 
and public sector.
  I would note to my friend from California [Mr. Dreier], that he cited 
a poll. That poll, he said, said that 60 percent of the people here in 
the District supported the voucher system. That is not correct. It is a 
joint center poll. I think the figure is 57.8 percent. However, it is a 
sampling of 800 and some odd people.
  Now, we have had a great debate on this floor about sampling, and the 
gentleman from California now has extracted that for all of the people 
in the District. So what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

                              {time}  1030

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, my colleague who pointed out that I was 
factually incorrect in fact is factually incorrect. I would like to 
make a clarification with regard to the bill.
  It says directly in the bill with regard to the District that tuition 
scholarships may be used at private schools in the District. It is 
right here in the language of the bill.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did not say it was not used, I said it was not 
restricted to private use; that you can choose to go to another public 
school if you desire.
  Ms. DeLAURO. It says private schools in the District. The gentleman 
is incorrect.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Los Angeles, who I should say has spent a good deal of time working on 
behalf of

[[Page H8736]]

the issues of concern here in the District of Columbia.
  I would simply point to the fact that under our proposal that exists 
here, the amount spent for public schools is literally twice that that 
would be expended under the voucher program. In fact, for those 76,000 
students, we propose spending $570 million, which is twice as much per 
student than those who would actually receive the parental choice 
scholarships.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], my point is, what is this all about? Let us concede that 2,000 
children will get a better education. I am not sure of that, but let us 
concede that. Then what? Is the suggestion that in the District of 
Columbia we will turn all the schools over to private? What is the 
point? We have been through this exercise.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the point is to try and 
encourage competition, to try to improve education, to try to get a 
system into place which can be successful, rather than the one that we 
have seen which virtually everyone has acknowledged is a failure.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the issue is 
not private versus public schools. It is trying to bring a school 
system that is in an emergency up to a level to help.
  Sure, we would like more money than for just the 2,000, but if we 
take a look, and I would like to submit, it is a civil right, fighting 
for school choice, per Dr. King. Here, school choice finds 
satisfaction, parents are pleased and pupils improve scores.
  If we look at national scores, the African-American community 
supports school choice. Bishop McKinney in my own city takes at-risk 
children, and 97 percent of them end up going to school.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will continue to yield, this 
debate is not about whether private or public schools are good or bad.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have not yielded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] controls the time at the moment.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to yield to my friend, the gentleman from San 
Diego, CA [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we are saying that the school system, 
especially in Washington, DC, is in an emergency situation, that we 
would like to take a look at that, that it has succeeded in other 
places in the country.
  Yes, there are good teachers here. I have met some of them. General 
Becton is trying to change things. But we are saying that yes, there 
are only 2,000 students, but we would like to help the system as we 
can, and in the future bring up the public schools to the same level.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is all, Mr. Speaker, about giving parents some choice and 
control over these decisions that are made here. If the Washington Post 
can advocate pursuing this sort of experiment, I think that we 
responsibly can do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from southern 
California that the issue is not whether private schools do good work 
or whether public schools do good work, and some are in trouble. I 
would suggest that there are a lot of schools in our society that do 
good work.
  The issue is not whether Martin Luther King said some statement that 
you are now using to support this, or the bishop in San Diego. The 
issue here is what the District should do in their school system.
  The gentleman has been a big supporter of the general that has been 
appointed superintendent. That was a bold step. We need to give him an 
opportunity, and if we are to do anything at the Federal level, it is 
to support his bold efforts, not to take off 2,000 kids, to prove what? 
That is my point.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Falls Church, VA [Mr. Davis], the chairman of the 
Subcommittee of the District of Columbia of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Just to correct some misunderstandings, this 2,000-student system 
where they will get the scholarships, I think that is a good idea. I 
will tell the gentleman why. I generally do not support vouchers. I am 
a strong supporter of the public schools, where I have three kids.
  But the city's public schools today, as the gentleman knows, are in a 
state of disarray. There is a dropout rate of about 40 percent. The 
most difficult thing is we cannot even certify to some of the parents 
that the schools are safe.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. What is the inference of what the gentleman is saying?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. The inference of what we are saying is while 
we are fixing the public schools, while we are putting more resources 
into public schools with this bill, that some of these kids that are 
there now and will be there next year, they will only be in third grade 
once. You do not take that year away from them. Let us give them the 
same kinds of opportunities that our children have.
  Not one Member of Congress, not the President, not the Vice 
President, sends their kids to the District of Columbia public schools. 
What it means is we would like to give some of these parents, the 
poorest of the poor, some of the opportunities that the rest of us have 
while we are trying to fix the system and make it work better.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good 
friend and congressional classmate, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the scholarship 
program. I have had five kids. All have attended public schools in 
Fairfax County.
  To verify what the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] said, I would 
just tell the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], my daughter taught 
for a year in the D.C. schools. If all of us had children in the D.C. 
schools, we would be up in arms trying to change it.
  I know of a family that took a young boy out of the District of 
Columbia and put him in, and he was not doing very well in school, put 
him in the Fairfax County schools, where he is now excelling and 
getting a B, and doing very, very well.
  We have an obligation. We have an obligation. None of us in this 
body, and there may be one or two, and if I am wrong, I apologize, but 
I do not believe there are more than two in this body that send their 
children to the D.C. schools. If they did, they would be up in arms.
  I strongly support the scholarship program. I commend the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader. I think the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis] has it exactly right. We have an obligation. If we 
were a mom or dad and we had a youngster in that school, we would be 
revolutionaries, trying to change that school system. Here is an 
opportunity trying to help at least 2,000.
  As Mother Teresa said when she went into Calcutta to help one, she 
could not help everybody in Calcutta, but she could help one. If we can 
help 1 or 10 or 2,000, we ought to do it. I strongly support it, and 
hope we get a majority on our side, but also a majority from this side.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Palm Bay, FL [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support this school choice experiment for the District of Columbia. 
Twenty percent of Americans have school choice. They are the wealthy, 
they are the upper middle class. The people who do not are the poor and 
needy. I believe we have a responsibility to try to do something to try 
to make a change.

[[Page H8737]]

  It has been demonstrated that just pouring more money into the system 
is not working. By looking at this and studying this, we can see 
firsthand if it is going to work. Frankly, I think it is irrational for 
anybody to be opposed to such a small school choice study right here in 
the capital city of the United States. For the life of me, I do not 
understand why anybody would oppose something this small, just to see 
if it works. If it fails, they will have their day. They can all rise 
up and say, ``It has been a disaster.''
  But if it works, we have set a new model, a new standard for 
communities all over the country.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we know some 
private schools work.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I came late to the floor. I understand that 
my colleagues are for this rule because the Moran amendment is made in 
order. I understand that rationale and I am for the Moran amendment.
  I do not believe the majority has the intent of supporting the Moran 
amendment. I do not know that. Some will vote for it, I hope, on the 
other side. If not, this process is a sham, it is an ideological quest 
that will ultimately clearly and unequivocally fail. It will be the 
closing down of Government of November 1995. Everybody knows if the 
Moran amendment is not adopted, this bill is deader than a doornail. 
They are wasting our time and America's time with this ideological 
quest they are about.
  Why do we waste time pretending that we are going to make policy when 
everybody knows, America knows and we all know, that this bill will be 
deader than a doornail if the Moran amendment is not adopted?
  I rise, in addition to that, to say that I lament the failure of the 
Committee on Rules to be responsible on this legislation, and precluded 
me from making an amendment to strike a provision which puts at risk 
the President of the United States, his family's safety, the staff of 
the White House's safety, and the visitors to the White House's safety.
  After a bipartisan group, of which Bill Webster, the former head of 
the FBI and the CIA, was a member, former General Jones, chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs was a member, unanimously recommended the closing of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, and I know that is controversial, but to change 
that policy in the twinkling of an eye denies the reality of the 
bombing in New York, denies the reality of the deaths of 168 people in 
Oklahoma City, denies the reality of the deaths of over 100 military 
personnel in Saudi Arabia.
  It is irresponsible, I say to my colleagues, to not give this House 
the opportunity to strike the provision which puts at risk the symbol 
of executive leadership, not just of America but of the world, knowing 
full well that we have terrorists throughout this country who would use 
that as a symbol for some demented objective. I urge the rejection of 
this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I should say, Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief one minute remaining, 
so I do not plan to yield, even to my friend, the gentleman from Los 
Angeles, CA [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that what we have come down to here, Mr. 
Speaker, is a very important question. My friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] just talked about partisanship and ideology. The 
fact of the matter is we should get beyond those things. I agree with 
that. What we should do is look at why it is that we are here dealing 
with this very important question.
  What is it? We want to empower parents to have some choice to do 
what? Help their children, improve their plight. Everyone acknowledges 
that the education system here in the District of Columbia is in very 
serious trouble. The Washington Post has said we should try this 
experiment of parental choice, and when we do that, with this 
experiment we will be spending half as much as is being expended on a 
per student basis today here in the District of Columbia.
  So let us put this issue of partisanship and ties to these special 
interests to the side, and at least try some creativity, an innovative 
way to deal with this very serious question.
  I urge support of this bipartisan rule. I said on WAMU this morning, 
in response to Mark Plotkin, we have a bipartisan agreement on the 
rule. Let us pass the rule, and then move ahead with what obviously 
will be a very interesting debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed until later today.
  The point no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________