[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8796-H8806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all 
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and 
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a 
violation of the House rules.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2-\3/4\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and for my colleagues' indulgence, especially since I have spoken 
a couple of times in the last 2 days, which is more commonly than I 
normally speak on the House floor.
  This is an issue I feel strongly about, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a 
shame. I think it is sad that so many people inside this House and 
outside this House have been fighting to the last ditch on behalf of 
the system that has trapped thousands and thousands of poor parents and 
their children in schools where they are not safe, where they do not 
learn, and where none of us would send our own children: The D.C. 
public schools.
  Now, we have had discussions, on this side of the aisle anyway, about 
the problems these schools are having. One of my colleagues said it 
needs some improvement. Well, that is correct. Seventy-eight percent of 
the 4th graders in the D.C. Public School System cannot read up to the 
national average. What will happen to those kids, Mr. Chairman? Do my 
colleagues know what happens to children if by the 4th grade they 
cannot read?
  This is a system that closed down the schools for 3 weeks at the 
beginning of the year without any notice to the parents, closed down 
all the schools because the roofs were falling in.
  We have heard a lot of arguments against this little scholarship 
program in this bill. It only affects 3 percent of the kids. That is 
because we are having difficulty getting the money even to do that. 
Another one: We cannot let any of these kids escape. We have to hold 
them all hostage to this system until we can make the whole system 
better.
  How many of us would put our own kids in this system on the gamble 
that the system will change fast enough so

[[Page H8797]]

that our kids will not be mired in a career and a life that will not be 
successful? Very few people do. Last year this provision was 
filibustered to death in the Senate by 41 Senators, none of whom sent 
their kids to the D.C. public schools.
  And the argument I like the best is, we cannot use scarce public 
resources for this. What is scarce in the District of Columbia is not 
resources, but education. The District has $7300 per pupil to spend on 
education. The Washington Post had it right in its headline on this 
subject. It is a well-financed failure. The system protects jobs while 
shortchanging classrooms. That is why the roofs are not fixed.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel kind of personal about this. I have stood with a 
lot of these parents as they have asked desperately for the right to 
give their kids a future. I have stood with them in the District of 
Columbia and I have stood with them in Indianapolis. I asked them there 
how important school choice was to them, because I knew how 
controversial it was here. They answered the way myself and colleagues 
would answer.
  Look, I know where the money and the strings and the power is on 
this. Stand with the parents and these kids. It is their future that is 
at stake. We should do for them what we would do for ourselves if we 
were in the same situation. Vote against the Moran substitute and 
sustain this bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran amendment 
and in opposition to the bill, and say that the Republicans do nothing 
to reform school and to provide that basic opportunity, the most basic 
of all, the opportunity to learn.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong and uniquivicable 
opposition to the inclusion of a provision instituting vouchers in the 
District of Columbia. Vouchers are not only bad policy but in this 
instance have clearly become the political tool of the Republican 
leadership to bash the public school system of this country and to play 
on the fears of our Nation's parents.
  Vouchers have received a significant amount of attention over the 
past few weeks as we have seen a major push by the Republican 
leadership to politically capitalize on the education of our children. 
We have heard our Republican colleagues use words like ``scholarships'' 
instead of vouchers to portray the message which their pollsters have 
said is so vital. I am pleased to see so much effort being put into 
ensuring that this message is not being lost.
  I have never been one to craft my views or modify my position just 
because the latest questionably accurate poll has produced certain 
conclusions. Instead, we should be concentrating on proposals and ideas 
that will increase the quality of education in this country rather than 
destroy it.
  Regardless, as I am sure it does not come as a surprise to any which 
have followed this issue, I am adamantly opposed to any use of public 
tax dollars for any voucher-like proposal, including the provisions 
included in this bill authorizing vouchers to be used in the District 
of Columbia. Not only do these provisions raise some very serious 
constitutional questions, but they will do little to help only a few 
students while greatly benefiting those whose interests are entrenched 
in private schools.
  In fact, Representative Armey himself has admitted that this bill 
will provide vouchers for only 2,000 D.C. children. Last time I checked 
this would not come close to helping the more than 80,000 school age 
children which reside in the District. We cannot and should not ignore 
the problems of today's educational system while attempting to 
capitalize on political rhetoric. The Republicans have sought to use 
D.C. vouchers as the answers to our Capital City's problems in its 
school system. This is wrong.
  Any proposal which invites the idea of providing private school 
vouchers dismantles an educational system which guarantees access for 
all by leaving ``choice'' in the hands of private school admissions 
officers.
  In addition to the destruction of equality in the most basic 
opportunity--the opportunity to learn--there is not one research study, 
which accurately provides evidence that vouchers improve student 
learning.
  Because of this lack of evidence, I see little reason to establish 
any type of Federal voucher program, including one in the District of 
Columbia. We have seen the existing voucher programs in Milwaukee and 
Cleveland provide no improvement in student achievement levels despite 
the fact that they have been in operation, at least in the case of 
Milwaukee, for over 6 years.
  In addition to the complete lack of a policy basis for enacting any 
type of private school voucher proposal, the American people have 
spoken repeatedly that they have no interest in such programs. Over 20 
States, including the District of Columbia, have held referenda on this 
issue and the citizens of all 20 States have rejected voucher programs.
  Our goal as public policy makers should be to construct broad policy 
which will improve the educational results of all of our children--not 
a select few.
  One of the most deeply rooted values in this country has been that 
all children are guaranteed access to an education. The public school 
system has been the institution in this country which has provided this 
opportunity. Yes, there are problems in our public schools, problems 
which deserve and need our attention. All of us in Congress realize 
that the District has a great share of problems in its public school 
system. However, we should not look for quick fixes to a situation 
which deserves careful consideration.
  As I said at a recent hearing in the Education and Workforce 
Committee on this subject, those who support vouchers want to abandon 
our public schools and the vast majority of children who would remain 
in what is already an underfunded system.
  Those of us in Congress need to show leadership in combating the 
problems that face us as elected leaders--not run away from them.
  Only by working within the public school system, both in the District 
and throughout the Nation, can we build upon the successes and learn 
from our failures in our attempts to educate our Nation's children.
  In closing, I would urge Member to vote for the Moran amendment, 
which in addition to its lack of a voucher proposal is a much improved 
version of this bill in many other areas. Now is not the time to go 
back on our educational commitments to our children.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury Postal Service, and General 
Government.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Those watching this debate on this floor or otherwise must think that 
Lewis Carroll must have written most of the speeches, because they are 
Alice in Wonderland types.
  I do not come to speak about the voucher system. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] was on the floor and talked about that system. 
Let him report a bill and we will debate the bill, and we will send it 
to the other body and they can send it to the President. And if the 
President decides to veto it, we will have an issue for the 1998 
election.
  This bill is deader than a doornail and every one of my colleagues 
know it. The Moran amendment that the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. 
Dunn] referred to as the Democratic alternative, my friends, the Moran 
amendment is the Republican bill passed by the U.S. Senate. That is 
what it is.
  This is a game. This is a game to appeal to some very good spirited 
people who want to have greater opportunity for their children. God 
bless them. Every one of us does as well. But this is the D.C. 
appropriation bill, not the authorizing bill, and this is a contentious 
issue.
  Not only that, my colleagues, the House, without any debate, any 
discussion, and against the advice and counsel of the Secret Service 
and Lew Merletti, the head of the Secret Service, and the Treasury 
Secretary, and General Jones, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, and Bill Webster, the former Chairman of the CIA and FBI, has 
said open Pennsylvania Avenue. That in the face of the Murrah Building, 
I tell my good friend from Oklahoma, that saw a car bomb parked close 
to the Murrah Building and 168 Americans lost their lives. That is why 
Pennsylvania Avenue was closed.
  But without hearings, without discussion, without any thoughtful 
consideration, we say expose the White House to that threat. My 
colleagues, remember in Saudi Arabia our troops housed there, but with 
a not big enough perimeter, had a car bomb explode and kill over 100 
American troops. Who on this floor wants to expose the President of the 
United States, his family, the staff and the visitors to the White 
House to that risk? If we do not vote for the Moran amendment, that is 
what we do.

[[Page H8798]]

  Again, the Moran amendment is the Republican alternative passed to us 
by the other body. It will be signed by the President. That is the 
difference between that and the committee's recommendation. Vote for 
Moran.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my 435 colleagues in the House of Representatives 
how can the Government say to any American parent, regardless of their 
economic status, that they cannot send their children to schools that 
work? How can they force their kids to go to school on a daily basis, 
terrorized to walk down the halls, having to pass through metal 
detectors to enter the building, where discipline, achievement and 
values have been swept away by drugs and violence? Which of us in this 
Chamber, which of us, I would love for one of us to stand up and say 
that we would send our children to such a school.
  How many years of our children's education would we waste waiting for 
officials, whose children go to schools across town, by the way, to the 
schools that work, waiting for the latest experiment to solve these 
problems? How many of us would put our children into these schools 
tomorrow based on a politician's promise that they will be better next 
year?
  For these children, these schools are not the great equalizer the 
other side talks about. These are forgotten kids, the victims of a 
terrible experiment in education that has gone terribly wrong, an 
experiment that has failed them for life.
  We have heard people say that we should not treat our children as 
guinea pigs. Well, I have to tell my colleagues what any one of these 
children's parents will tell us. These children are being treated much 
worse than guinea pigs. The experiment we have run on them has been 
much more cruel, and it has failed a long, long time ago. The lost 
generations of our inner city kids that cannot read and write and do 
the arithmetic are walking witnesses to that fact.
  I ask my colleagues to look at the terrible cost of the status quo, 
the cruel consequences of our inability as public officials to come up 
with solutions to a problem that has been with us for the last two 
decades. The time for empty promises is over. The time for positive 
action is upon us. The only question left to ask is how many more 
children will lose out on their most basic birthright as Americans: A 
quality education? We should promise the kids in the inner cities the 
same quality of education as the kids in the suburbs.
  It has been said that the President will veto this legislation 
because of the D.C. scholarship program. I ask my colleagues this 
question: If the President can live in public housing and send his 
child to private schools, why can poor people not live in public 
housing and send their children to private school?
  We can start to fulfill this promise today by voting against the 
Moran substitute.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to portions 
of the D.C. appropriation measure, which undermines the ability of the 
people of the District to govern themselves.
  It is instructive that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
will not vote on this bill and will not vote on any of the amendments. 
It is symbolic of the fact that the people of the District are without 
any choice in this matter.
  It is especially troubling that language was included in this bill 
that will impose a school voucher program in the District. Let me 
remind my colleagues that the District has already rejected school 
voucher programs by wide margins. And if things have changed since 
then, then give the District the money for the scholarships and let 
them decide whether to use it for vouchers, and that will be real 
choice.
  If we let this ideology of the proponents of school choice, then 
surely Congress would be willing to entertain other choice initiatives. 
Let us see if we can improve public transportation, reduce traffic, and 
improve road conditions by giving individual citizens a voucher to buy 
a car rather than investing resources into highways and public 
transportation.
  Support the Moran substitute.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I wanted to read my colleagues a letter we received from the U.S. 
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. It says, ``As in many areas where 
education opportunities are poor, a disproportionate number of the 
children attending failing schools in our Nation's capital are 
Hispanic.''
  We strongly support H.R. 1797, the Taylor bill, not the Democrat 
substitute. And that is parenthetically. I am explaining. Students 
would benefit from this. This is from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. 
They support this.
  Here is a resolution from the Baptist Convention of D.C. They support 
it. Here, Mr. Chairman, is a group called Save the Kids. Over 100 
ministers from inner city churches; Baptist churches, Episcopalian, 
CME, Christian, Catholic, AME, full gospel and Methodist churches, all 
that support student choice and the voucher scholarship program 
proposed in the Taylor bill.
  Here is a petition signed by over 2,000 Washington, DC residents, 
people who are interested in having their children compete.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year we were contacted in our office to 
see if we could hire, temporarily, give an opportunity to a child from 
Washington, DC to work in our office because she was a junior in high 
school but did not have her school open this year because the schools 
in Washington, DC are in such disrepair. We had this young lady working 
in our office. I believe that she deserves the opportunities that other 
kids have from all over the country have from affluent families, of 
being able to pick and choose her school that she could go out and 
compete in the international and national marketplace.
  This is about children. This is not about inner city power. This is 
about kids of America; giving them a choice.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the 
gentleman what bill he was referring to. He said H.R. 1797. We are not 
debating H.R. 1797. That must be some outdated bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moran substitute and in 
opposition to the risky scheme to provide taxpayer-funded vouchers.
  I served as superintendent of schools in my State for a total of 8 
years. That State is North Carolina. I know what it takes to improve 
the quality of education, because in the latest release of the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress, our fourth-graders gained three 
times the national average in growth and our eighth-graders gained a 
full year in this past decade, and our African American students had 
achieved some of the same gains, only greater than other students.
  Vouchers will only divert attention away from improving public 
schools. Vouchers will increase the cost of education. Vouchers will 
reduce the accountability of schools to the American taxpayers. And 
vouchers will rob our communities of the resources needed to improve 
education.
  Mr. Chairman, improving schools takes bold, visionary leadership, it 
takes a commitment to improving educational opportunity for all 
children, and it takes setting high standards, holding the school 
administrators, teachers, parents, and students accountable for these 
standards. Vouchers are the exact opposite of what is needed.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this cowardly act of surrender and 
support the Moran amendment and against vouchers.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].

[[Page H8799]]

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I come from the fine tradition of public 
schools in the State of South Dakota. Frankly, we do not need a voucher 
system in South Dakota. But last year, our legislature approved open 
enrollment with the full support of the educational community because 
we recognize the value of parental choice.
  When I moved to this area this year, we decided to live in Arlington, 
Virginia, because of the school system. We predicated that decision 
based upon the school system. I happen to believe that parents and kids 
here in DC deserve better than what we have got. The system is broken.
  I do not know how anybody can defend the status quo. We have an 
opportunity here to help provide a better future for the kids and 
parents who live in this area. We probably see here a culture in which 
we spend more dollars for less results than anywhere in the country. We 
need innovation here. And I think it is very important that we move 
this forward, defeat the Moran amendment, and advance an issue and a 
cause which I think is going to be very beneficial to the community and 
to the parents and the kids who live in this area.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The Chair would advise all 
Members that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] has 12 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has 9\1/
4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Taylor] has the right to close.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, where one stands is what one does and not 
what one says. The opposition says we are supporting a good public 
school. What we have heard is a problem of public schools. The solution 
we have is to give 2,000 students an opportunity to live.
  Where are the 76,000 students that need that help? We need to find 
ways to improve the school for the majority and not hold up the false 
pretense of choice. This is not about choice. I am for choice. This is 
not anti-parochial school. I am a product of a parochial school.
  One needs not to say this is about having income that they can go to 
private school or not. Parochial school gives opportunity to 
disadvantaged schools. That is how I got through parochial school. We 
do not take away the needed resources to make the school work. It is 
not working. But they are going to ensure that it does not work.
  Yes, we wish we had open choice here that anyone could go to any 
public school. That is not true. We must improve the school. The only 
way to do that is to support the Moran bill and defeat the House bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Taylor] for yielding me the time.
  I am very disappointed that I have to stand on this side of the House 
of Representatives to talk on behalf of this voucher bill.
  I first became interested in choice vouchers, scholarships, whatever 
we want to call them, back in 1979, when I became the chairman of the 
education committee in the Chicago City Council. At that time, a number 
of minority aldermen came to my meeting that I was having on education, 
and they are the ones that brought choice to my attention. Since that 
time, it is something I have been very much supportive of.
  Over the course of the 15 years that I have been in the United States 
House of Representatives, there are several bills that have I put in 
dealing with voucher choice programs. Unfortunately, they never went 
anyplace. So today I find myself on the other side of the aisle 
speaking on behalf of a program I do support. And I support it because 
there are two other locations in this country where this type of 
program is going on. One is in Cleveland; one is in Milwaukee.
  In both of those communities, choice has improved, the reading level, 
the math level of the students in the choice voucher program. The 
program that is going to be established here in Washington, D.C., is a 
small program, but I believe it is a step in the right direction for 
these students.
  I think choice is not going to do away with the public school system. 
I certainly do not want to do away with the public school system, but I 
do sincerely believe that the competition that choice will provide will 
motivate the public school system to do a better job across the board.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, as the debate nears to a close, I think 
just about everybody has figured out the Gingrich scheme. This 
Republican bill is supposed to fail. Of course it will fail, and of 
course the District will be plunged further into chaos.
  That is the whole idea, and that is why even moderate Republicans 
have to jump bail, and that is why our conservative Democrats are 
joining us in the Moran substitute. The whole idea is that we finally 
got a Republican measure in the substitute that the Republicans are 
attacking as if it was a Democratic bill. It is just the best we can 
do.
  I have never in my life supported a Faircloth measure, and I find 
myself doing it today. And it is not bad.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if it is permitted 
under the Rules of the House to refer to a Member of the other body by 
name.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Referring to a Member of the other body in 
a factual reference to sponsorship of a companion measure is not out of 
order.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] 
brings us the bill from the other side of the body, a bill that is 
acutely interesting to me in that it does not include the parental 
choice language for 2,000 school scholarships that I authored. A bitter 
disappointment to me.
  The language, exact language, that we have in our bill was offered on 
the other side by Senator Lieberman and would have been included in 
this bill, in this substitute, except for the fact that it did not make 
the cut on a filibuster offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  It did have 58 votes, though, instead of the required 60. It might 
have had the other two votes if there had not been 22 National 
Educational Association lobbyists working the halls of Congress on that 
day. So on a square vote, your substitute would include this parental 
choice language.
  I have worked on this for a long time, and I have to tell you 
something. While so many times I deal with legislation in somewhat of 
an objective, abstract way, this is personal, this is very, very deeply 
personal with me. It is not about my party. It is not about your party. 
It is not about the city of D.C., although I should tell you, this 
committee has been generous in that it has put in this bill $1 million 
more for the D.C. education budget than what was asked. And we support 
every effort to rehabilitate the D.C. schools.
  But what is upsetting people is, we add, in addition to that extra $1 
million, $7 million to go directly to the families, directly to the 
children, for them to pick a school with $3,200 scholarships for the 
children.
  I know these children. I want to talk to you about two of these 
children, two of these children that have made it personal for me. 
There is 9-year-old Sherard. Nine-year-old Sherard should be in the 
fourth grade. And if he were in public school, he would be. But he can 
only read at the second-grade level.
  By the generosity of some private source, his family received for him 
a scholarship to go to a private school. When he went to that school, 
they told him they would have to hold him back to the second grade. And 
they would have done so but for two very dedicated people who said, 
``We will continue to tutor this child.'' And on the basis of

[[Page H8800]]

that commitment, Sherard was not dropped back to the second grade but 
was held to the third grade.
  And Sherard is happy. His mother told me that, 2 weeks after Sherard 
had been in school, 1 week before he would have been in school had he 
been in the D.C. schools, she had already had more contact from this 
school about what to do with Sherard, how to help Sherard, how she can 
attend better to Sherard than she had ever had for any of her other 
children from the D.C. public schools.
  The school reached out to this child. Some private benefactor reached 
out to this child, his mother is reaching out to this child, two tutors 
are reaching out to this child, because they love this child too much 
to let him be the victim of social promotion.
  There is another young man that I know of. My neighbor runs a prison 
ministry. In a prison in D.C. right now, he is teaching a young man in 
his early twenties how to read out of second- and third-grade primers, 
despite the fact the young man has a high school diploma from the D.C. 
schools.
  I refuse to let Sherard, and if I can help 2,000 other children in a 
way that Sherard has been helped to escape the victimization of social 
promotion from schools that are dysfunctional, so bad that the 
Washington Post characterized them as well-financed failures, to 
happen.
  This is not about me. It is about some concept. It is not about some 
experiment. It is not about partisan politics. It is about whether or 
not we can take an extra $7 million, an extra $7 million and help 2,000 
precious children. If I had put in this bill $7 million of extra money 
to fix potholes, there would not have been one voice raised in protest.

                              {time}  1615

  I would ask my colleagues, look in your hearts, think about these 
children. Are my colleagues going to tell me that fixing children is 
less important than fixing potholes? I do not think so. Soften your 
hearts, get beyond the politics, get beyond the big, powerful, well-
financed special interests, get beyond the National Education 
Association. Get in touch with these children and these parents.
  I had another couple of parents that I talked to one evening. They 
were in their early 20's. Neither one had finished school. They had a 
child; I thought that child was their younger brother. They said, ``No 
matter what, our child will have more.''
  They got a scholarship, again, from a private funding organization, a 
Washington scholarship fund, that paid for half that child's expense to 
go to a private school where it would cost $3,200, as over and against 
the $9,000 that is spent on children in the D.C. schools to fail the 
children. And this very, very young and dedicated mother took a second 
job so she could make up the difference between that $1,500 and the 
$3,200.
  The slots are there. We know that there are positions available, 
there are places, little desks for little people, for 2,200 children at 
least. I personally documented that in my own office by making the 
phone calls. The schools are there, and the schools are there because 
the people in the communities saw the need and put the schools in 
place.
  I must tell my colleagues, there is nothing that could be sadder than 
a school system that has been such a failure to these very, very 
precious children, and a Congress of the United States that would 
support a filibuster against their help in the other body, and deny 
that help in this body.
  The only thing that I can think that could break these children's 
hearts more than to realize that the Congress of the United States 
think of them has nothing other than a social experiment. They are real 
children. They are no less precious than my children, they are no less 
precious than your children, and each and every one of these children 
deserves the support of my colleagues over and above any disdain one 
has for those who brought the language to the floor.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Once again, Mr. Chairman, we are here on the 
floor of the House attempting to reverse an assault on the District by 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle as they embark on their 
annual journey to use the District of Columbia as a laboratory and to 
experiment with their favorite political and ideological issues, ones 
that they would not attempt in their own districts.
  On top of everything else that is abhorrent in this bill, Mr. 
Chairman, the bill would impose what the authors of the bill would 
admit is another experiment, the school voucher program, one which 
might help 3 percent of D.C. students but would definitely keep needed 
funds from the D.C. public school system.
  This is not about parental choice, Mr. Chairman. This is about 
writing off almost 78,000 children in the District of Columbia, and 
Democrats are not going to allow you to do that.
  As a mother of two public school students who plan to be public 
school teachers, and as a PTA president for many years, I urge my 
colleagues to support the Moran amendment and reject this regressive 
bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Moran substitute for three basic reasons.
  One, it eliminates the opportunity to waive the prevailing wage. 
Anybody working, no matter what they work on, should be adequately 
paid. It takes the caps off of medical malpractice, which is nothing 
more than an attempt to backdoor tort reform to the detriment of 
consumers. And of course it eliminates vouchers, which have been spoken 
to all evening.
  The fact of the matter is that public education has been the greatest 
equalizer existing on the face of this Earth. It is the main way that 
most of us were able to move beyond the immediacy of our burden, of our 
circumstances.
  I believe that if we want to equalize America, public education is 
the way.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran substitute.
  Today we are witnessing perhaps the grossest abuse of power that many 
of us have ever seen or will ever see. I remember a movie that I saw, 
``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' and the moral and the lesson of that movie 
was never to use one's strength and power against the vulnerable, or do 
not just run over the powerless, do not take advantage of those who 
cannot fight back.
  Today Washington, DC, is that mockingbird. The gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]) the Delegate here, does not have a 
vote. They do not have representation over in the Senate. But we are 
not only disregarding that fact, we are disregarding the fact that we 
have a finance control board controlled by and run by conservative 
economists, a city council, a mayor, those people who are elected to do 
the work at the local level.
  We have 62 riders in this bill that we are trying to defend against 
with this amendment; 62 riders that talk about everything from how many 
people can be the security for the Mayor, or whether or not one can 
have a lease for helicopters, on and on and on. And the most egregious 
part of this is that you would shove vouchers down the throats of the 
District of Columbia, despite the fact that over 80 percent of the 
people voted against vouchers in this District.
  Do my colleagues care about education? Many of the people on the 
other side of the aisle want to get rid of the Department of Education. 
Where would these people, when many people from communities around this 
world wanted choice through busing and they stood up and they said, 
``No, we will not allow you that choice, to open up the District's line 
so you can have your children go to any of the schools they would 
choose.''
  I tell my colleagues, we have to support this amendment. We have to 
support it because it is the only right thing to do.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
  (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)

[[Page H8801]]

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, as a former educator, I have 
sat here to try and listen to a plan for our children. I have not heard 
it, and so I will say that I am for the Moran amendment, and I oppose 
anyone who has not given us a plan for absolutely educating our 
children in this country.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor to say that my 
colleagues can cite their deceptive letters and free money petitions 
all they want to, but I got 90 percent of the vote in the last election 
in the District of Columbia, and I think I can say with confidence that 
the people I represent would deeply resent the imposition of vouchers 
paid for out of our own rescue package money when we have rejected such 
a measure by 89 percent.
  There is another reason for voting against this bill, and I will let 
the conservative Washington Times have the last word on that, and I am 
quoting:

       Charles Taylor, whose litany of amendments which at one 
     point numbered an incredible 62, threatens to unravel the 
     very fiscally conservative and sound management reforms 
     Congress has been working on for the past 2\1/2\ years. It is 
     one thing to question the resolve of a few of D.C.'s elected 
     officials to get the job done, but has Mr. Taylor no 
     confidence in even the efforts of his colleagues on Capitol 
     Hill?

  R-E-S-P-E-C-T spells respect. Show some respect for me and for the 
people I represent. Support the Moran substitute.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, despite all the rhetoric, this amendment is not about 
vouchers. It is about choice: Whether the residents of the District of 
Columbia are able to choose their own government, are able to choose 
their own budget. Their democratically elected government did submit a 
budget. The mayor, the city council, the congressionally-created 
control board submitted a consensus budget.
  The other body agreed with that budget. All this substitute amendment 
does is it enables the House to agree with it so that the District of 
Columbia can run its own affairs.
  The chairman of the District of Columbia control board said that this 
bill, if it is approved as presented to the House, will further weaken 
the District of Columbia by severely undercutting the ability of the 
District of Columbia financial responsibility and management authority, 
the control board that the Congress set up to carry out the mandate of 
Congress, to restore the District's financial base and implement 
management reforms. That is all this amendment is all about.
  The gentlewoman cited the Washington Times. Here is The Washington 
Post. It says that this is the House at its worst on D.C. The House of 
Representatives need not do this to the Nation's Capital or to itself. 
The city needs an appropriations bill that will help it manage its own 
affairs competently as both a locality and the Nation's Capital. It 
does not need and cannot conceivably be helped in this effort to reform 
itself by what it calls the silly, showboating indulgences of 
Congressmen who act as if they have nothing else to do.
  We have something better to do. The gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Taylor] certainly can do better than to submit this bill. Our 
House will be proud of the bill that we agreed to if we agree to this 
substitute amendment. We can get the bill enacted. We can give the 
money to the District and to the control board that we created to carry 
out their affairs according to their own priorities.
  That is all this is about. It is not about vouchers. It is about 
giving local government the authority that they deserve. We need to 
respect them and to respect the democratic process. That is all our 
amendment is all about.
  The alternative is not to have vouchers, the alternative is to have 
nothing, to have no bill. D.C. will not get its funding. D.C. will not 
be able to carry out its contracts. The control board we created will 
not be able to function. That is not fair. It is not right. It 
certainly is not what the Congress intended.
  Do not do this to our Nation's Capital, do not do this to the House 
of Representatives. Support this amendment. Do the right thing.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, despite all the loud 
rhetoric we have heard today, this chairman holds the people of DC in 
respect. That is why I have so suffered the editorials and the charges 
in the press, and I sometimes wonder whether the editorial writers are 
talking to their reporters, because the press each morning runs an 
article showing problems in the city and at the same time on their 
editorial page they criticize this body for trying to fix those 
problems.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to 
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], 
the Speaker of the House, is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran] for a very clever motion. Rather than have a 
straight-up vote on the issue of whether or not the poorest children in 
this city should have a chance to get a decent education instead of 
ending up illiterate and going to jail, rather than having a straight-
up debate about the failure of a school system that spends $10,000 per 
child, according to the U.S. Department of Education statistics, 
instead of talking about saving children who are being destroyed by 
being trapped in buildings in which they have no future, while we 
prattle on about reform some day and we talk about all sorts of 
abstract rights as the children are destroyed, the gentleman from 
Virginia cleverly said, I will take Lauch Faircloth's, a North Carolina 
conservative, Senate bill and try to substitute it entirely, so we can 
talk in general about how you might change this gentleman from North 
Carolina's bill by substituting Senator Faircloth of North Carolina's 
bill. It is a wonderful ploy.
  But that is not what this vote is really about. The truth is, we will 
go to conference. The truth is, many of the things they are most 
concerned about will be fixed or changed. The truth is, that is the 
normal process. This is not the final passage on the final day. This is 
moving a bill to conference.
  But what the gentleman cleverly did, and it was clever, is he just 
happened in his motion to drop out the chance for 2,000 children to 
have a better future. He just happened to drop out the chance for 
families whose income is below the poverty level to have a better 
future.
  I want every Member of this House to think about this, because I am, 
frankly, sickened by 14 years of excuses. For 14 years, since A Nation 
At Risk was printed in 1993, for 14 years we have been promised by the 
education bureaucrats, the education certifiers, the education 
professionals, the education unions, that some day we will get decent 
schools, and the kids are destroyed and they end up in prison.
  I talked to Mayor Reardon of Los Angeles, a man who has personally 
given millions of dollars to literacy programs, a man who has been 
personally engaged in helping poor children learn how to read. He told 
me in August, in his estimate in Los Angeles in the poorest 
neighborhoods, 12 percent of the 18-year-olds are learning to read at 
the eighth grade level. Eighty-eight percent of the children in the 
poorest neighborhoods read below the eighth grade at 18 years of age.
  There is something tragically, profoundly wrong. We all know it. We 
know that despite all the promises, despite all the university studies, 
despite all the committees, today, while we are debating, poor children 
in America are being destroyed. We know that. We know that when they 
cannot read, in the age of the computer, they are going to end up in 
jail. We know that. We know it is not a function of money, because if 
money would have done it, then in a school system that spends $10,000 a 
child, D.C., it would have been fixed.
  I have heard Democrats come in here and promise to fix it, and I have 
heard Republicans promise to fix it, and nobody has fixed it. They 
closed the school for 3 weeks, every school in this city for 3 weeks, 
to fix the roofs. Last week they had to close one of the schools to fix 
the roof.

[[Page H8802]]

  We had a picture in the Washington Post of what the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] was referring to on the news page, not the 
editorial page. There was a picture of children being led, walking, to 
another building, because their building had been closed. This is the 
circumstance we are faced with. This is the circumstance we are all 
faced with.
  Let us be honest about it, that thousands of children today in the 
Nation's Capitol, at $10,000 a child, are being cheated. They are being 
cheated by the politicians, they are being cheated by the unions, they 
are being cheated by the bureaucracy. The answer of my good friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] is, well, some day, some day.
  We have at least a start. It is not a great start, it is not perfect, 
but it says to 2,000 children in this city, you will have a chance, if 
your parents are below poverty, and the gentleman from Texas has shown 
great courage in standing up and saying he wants those children now to 
have a chance to go to a school that is safe, that is drug-free, and 
that actually teaches kids, so they can go to college and not go to 
jail.
  What, I would say to my liberal friends, what are they afraid of? Do 
they think these 2,000 children will have less education? Do they think 
these 2,000 children will have less of a chance to avoid jail? Do they 
think these 2,000 children will somehow magically disappear? No.
  They are not even afraid the money will come from the schools, 
because the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] has met that objection, 
because he was offering $7 million additional. Normally a person who 
comes and says, I will give the inner city $7 million additional, is 
viewed as a good person. So it does not even come out of the $10,000.
  That means the D.C. schools will have $20 million additional to spend 
if those 2,000 kids leave, because the $10,000 per child stays in the 
school. So the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Dick Armey] is offering $7 
million over and above the budget, and that will increase to $20 
million to be spent per capita, and the kids are already in the school, 
and now they are still complaining, they are still against it. And do 
Members know why they are afraid? Because if this works, if this 
succeeds and these kids have a decent future, the failure and the 
bankruptcy of the unions and the bureaucracies will be proven.
  I just want to say to all of the Members to vote their conscience, 
but I will tell the Members this. What this vote is about is whether or 
not 2,000 children have a chance to go to college and not go to jail. 
And if Members vote no, they know that they can at least say, I did 
everything I could to save those children from jail, and everything I 
could to give those children an education, and everything I could to 
send a signal that we are fed up with children being destroyed by 
bureaucracies that refuse to reform.
  If Members vote yes, then one day down this road, when they meet 
those children and they are illiterate, ignorant, and helpless, and 
going to jail, they should look in the mirror when they want to know 
what happened.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 212, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 512]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--212

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Nethercutt
       

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Baker
     Baldacci
     Berman
     Brown (FL)
     Buyer
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     McCarthy (MO)
     Miller (CA)
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Torres
     Wolf

                              {time}  1656

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Hall of Ohio for, with Mr. Wolf against.
       Mr. Berman for, with Mr. Chambliss against.
       Mr. Baldacci for, with Mr. Lewis of California against.


[[Page H8803]]


  Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 512, the 
Moran substitute amendment to DC Appropriations bill, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the school voucher 
proposal for the District of Columbia.
  Our focus as a Federal Government should be on improving our public 
schools rather than abandoning them. Diverting public money to private 
schools is not a way to improve education. It is, however, an 
experiment that is doomed to fail leaving this city's schoolchildren as 
the casualties.
  Not one of us is going to contest the assertion that the D.C. public 
schools need help. But the way to do this is through efforts like 
comprehensive school reform, by engaging parents, teachers, and the 
community in creating and maintaining high performance centers of 
learning with challenging academic standards.
  Creating a voucher system does not solve the problem, it merely 
shifts the responsibility elsewhere. It also does not guarantee that 
students from low-performing schools will meet the admission standards 
of private institutions.
  Public school choice, magnet schools, charter schools, and 
comprehensive school reform efforts can provide effective alternatives 
to passing our problems off on private schools.
  The GOP voucher plan offers this ill-conceived alternative to 2,000 
of the school system's 78,000 students. General Julius Becton, the 
superintendent of the D.C. Public Schools has set out on a serious 
effort to provide the best education we can for all of the children of 
the District of Columbia.
  Our Federal responsibility in education is to support States and 
local school districts in their efforts to make better public schools 
and better learners. It is not an acceptable solution to engage in 
misguided social engineering by draining funds that would be used to 
improve the public schools. The Democrats of this House have a plan, a 
good plan that raises the prospects for all of America's public 
schoolchildren, not just a select few at the expense of all the rest.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Sabo 
amendment to H.R. 2607, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 1998. H.R. 2607 includes a provision allowing public school 
contractors to waive Davis-Bacon requirements for construction and 
repair laborers. This provision is voluntary, not mandatory. This 
provision would help the District attract volunteer services to help 
with the emergency repairs needed at the District's public schools. 
Residents in the entire Washington metropolitan area, as well as most 
of the Nation, are aware of the dilapidated state of the District's 
schools. Clearly, the first priority should be to get the schools 
opened as soon as possible. Yet, an offer by the Promise Keepers to 
volunteer their services and make repairs at all the schools was 
denied. They were only allowed to repair one school. This is 
incomprehensible. Their offer was denied. Why? Davis-Bacon. Why force 
schools to spend scarce funding to make repairs that could be made for 
free? Our children cannot learn if they cannot attend school. There is 
no reason to give rigid David-Bacon rules a veto over the needs of 
Washington, DC's students. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the 
Sabo amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Moran substitute. I 
support it because it eliminates many of the harmful riders that the 
majority has added to the D.C. appropriations bill, including the $7 
million to fund tuition vouchers for district students.
  It is appalling that the majority would blackmail the citizens of 
this great city into accepting a congressional mandated school voucher 
program that the District voters overwhelmingly rejected, and is 
opposed by District school officials.
  This voucher plan is seriously flawed. First, it does nothing for 97 
percent of the District students who would not receive a voucher. We 
should be helping all 78,000 of the district's children, not draining 
taxpayer dollars from the public schools for just a lucky few that may 
benefit from a voucher program. Further, the amount of the voucher 
would not even pay entry into many private schools, and many of those 
that would be affordable have limited slots and barriers to admission.
  The real Republican agenda is to undermine public support for public 
education, and ultimately close down our neighborhood schools. We saw 
the real Republican agenda in action when they tried and failed to 
abolish the Department of Education, attempted to block grant education 
programs, and worked to slash Federal funding for education. Now, 
desperate to advance their right wing agenda, they are looking to drain 
taxpayer dollars out of public schools and into private and religious 
schools.
  I call on the majority to stop playing politics with our public 
schools and join with Democrats to invest more in early childhood 
education, give relief of our crumbling and overcrowded schools, give 
Federal support for local school renewal plans, and ensure that we have 
well-trained teachers.
  I urge support for this substitute.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, let me rise in support of this amendment 
and describe why I believe the philosophy behind the Davis-Bacon Act is 
so important. It is my belief that the Federal Government should not 
use its vast procurement power to depress the wages and living 
standards of construction workers across this country. That philosophy 
is as valid today as it was when the law was first enacted.
  Let's remember the Davis-Bacon Act does not require the payment of 
the union wage. The Department of Labor is charged with determining the 
prevailing wage rates for each job classification required for a 
project based on the area where the particular job is located.
  I don't want and don't believe anyone in this body wants to go back 
over 50 years to a time when low-paid workers move into an area and 
depress wages for local workers. That is the basis for this legislation 
and that is why it is important to support this amendment.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support providing the 
District of Columbia with the flexibility and choice to waive the 
Davis-Bacon Act to help complete emergency school repair projects.
  Opponents of this modest effort claim the sky is falling in and that 
this is really a vote on repeal--it is not. The bill does not repeal 
the Davis-Bacon Act. It is not a mandate and it is not an order. It 
simply grants D.C. schools the option of waiving Davis-Bacon 
requirements. This is a vote to promote fairness, flexibility and 
choice.
  Rather than forcing D.C. school districts to comply with an 
expensive, antiquated, out-of-date Government requirement, Congress has 
the chance to provide flexibility to the school system. D.C. schools 
may have the opportunity to fix more roofs, paint more classrooms, or 
expand classroom learning opportunities.
  Instead of putting more taxpayer funds into the pockets of big labor, 
let's use it to help children--to repair schools and provide a better 
educational environment. Oppose the Sabo motion to strike, free the 
District of Columbia schools.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer my support for 
Representative Moran's substitute that will eliminate the school 
voucher proposal from the D.C. appropriations bill. While Majority 
Leader Armey may call this provision a scholarship opportunity please 
do not fail to see this as a voucher program in its purest form. This 
voucher will do nothing to solve the real problems of the D.C. public 
schools and only separate children into a two tiered public education 
system. There will be the lucky few who can find a private school that 
has a tuition of less than $3,200 out in the suburbs of Virginia and 
Maryland. The parents of these children will then be forced to scrape 
together enough money to pay for the transportation, books, and 
supplies private schools require an this voucher does not cover. The 
rest of the children will be left to spend their days in a less than 
stellar school system. The rest of these children are being ignored by 
those who support this voucher as castoffs and less than worthy of 
quality education.
  We must ask ourselves what exactly this provision of the bill will 
achieve? I am not sure but I can tell you what it will not achieve: It 
will not be cost effective but waste precious tax dollars that will 
send children away from their neighborhoods to a few select Virginia 
and Maryland private and religious schools. It will not reflect what 
the residents of the District of Columbia really want. Instead it 
allows the Republican leadership to use the children of this city as 
guinea pigs for their misguided programs. It will not give parents a 
better opportunity to educate their children but provide federal, 
public funds for private and religious schools. It will not ensure 
equity for all students because the bill does not have adequate 
antidiscrimination language. To make matters worse, voucher programs 
have been continually voted down in State legislatures in 19 States 
including the District of Columbia. Therefore, Republican leaders are 
asking us to support a measure for this city that many of their own 
constituents have voted against back home.
  Finally, I would like to say that I find this measure included in the 
D.C. appropriations bill an antihome rule violation and a failure of 
our Government to reform and help mend our inner-city public schools 
for not just here in the District of Columbia but in cities across this 
Nation.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose 
the motion to strike and to support the provision waiving the

[[Page H8804]]

Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law when awarding construction and repair 
contracts for District of Columbia schools. This provision is 
voluntary.
  Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements increase the cost of school 
construction--forcing taxpayers to pay more and receive less in return. 
Government estimates, economic studies, and those involved in the 
construction industry believe that the Davis-Bacon Act inflates the 
cost of a construction project by an estimated 5 to 38 percent. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that Davis-Bacon adds about $2.8 
billion, over 5 years, to the cost of all Federal construction 
projects.
  Recent headlines in the Washington Post, highlight the problem with 
D.C. schools. Every conceivable problem plagues the school system--from 
fire code violations to water pouring into leaking roofs to boilers 
that don't work forcing children to wear coats and mittens to class. 
The General Services Administration surveyed every D.C. school and 
found that the typical building is more than 50 years old and repair or 
replacement costs are estimated to be $2 billion.
  The D.C. appropriation bill gives the District a choice--officials 
can opt to waive the Davis-Bacon Act. This is voluntary, not a 
mandatory requirement. It is one small step that may help resolve some 
of the problems facing a school system in deplorable shape--and in the 
process help the children of the District of Columbia receive the 
education they deserve.
  Support the voluntary waiver, oppose the motion to strike.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2607, 
the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998. This 
bill not only sets dangerous precedents, it is just plain bad policy. 
The leadership of this body claims to want to expand the role of State 
and local authority while shrinking the size of the Federal Government. 
However, this bill is yet another attempt to micromanage the District 
of Columbia. There are at least 60 extraneous policy riders on this 
bill, two of which are so egregious they deserve specific criticism.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill because of its unfair 
treatment of school children in our Nation's capitol. The bill we 
consider today establishes a voucher program which purports to allow 
poor children in Washington, DC to attend private schools. Under this 
bill, we will allocate nearly $45 million in Federal funds to pay for 
the private school education of approximately 3 percent of the 
District's students--about 2,000 school children. While I in no way 
would favor denying educational opportunities to children, is this 
really the best use of Federal dollars? Instead of siphoning money into 
private and parochial schools, I believe we should focus on fixing the 
problems in our public schools so that all school children will 
benefit. We should rebuild our educational foundation to make our 
public schools a safe haven for learning. Here in the District of 
Columbia, some schools remain closed because of construction problems. 
It is a great travesty that in the most influential city in the world 
students cannot go to school because of fire code violations. It is 
shameful that today we debate ways to put more children in private 
schools rather than working on improving our public schools. A free 
public school education for all Americans is one of the basic tenets of 
our Nation. We must not abandon this principle.
  Another issue that some are trying to claim as a school issue is the 
waiver of the Davis-Bacon Act. Davis-Bacon for years has guaranteed 
American workers an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. This law 
helps promote greater productivity, cost-effective construction and 
stable economies for America's communities. This should be no exception 
in the District of Columbia. I have heard from some of my colleagues 
that eliminating Davis-Bacon will save money on school construction. 
However, gutting the income of workers will not lower the costs of 
school construction for taxpayers. In fact, a recent study showed that 
repeal of Davis-Bacon indicated that square foot construction costs are 
lower in States with prevailing wage laws compared to those where this 
law no longer exists. I support the Sabo amendment to strike this 
provision of the bill. Eliminating Davis-Bacon is unfair to workers in 
D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. it is 
bad for children, bad for workers and insulting for District residents 
who continue to be denied fair representation. This bill represents a 
step backward for the people of D.C.
  I support the Moran substitute amendment which eliminates the 
dangerous and extraneous riders to this bill. The Moran amendment 
enables funding to continue to our Federal city without imposing 
burdensome new policies on D.C. residents. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. There being no further 
amendments, under the rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Pease] having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 264, he 
reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House 
with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1700


          Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is the gentleman opposed to the 
bill?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker, in its 
present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Moran of Virginia moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     2607, to the Committee on Appropriations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 203, 
nays 202, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 513]

                               YEAS--203

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)

[[Page H8805]]


     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barton
     Berman
     Brown (FL)
     Buyer
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McHugh
     Miller (CA)
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Torres
     Wolf

                              {time}  1732

  Mr. HOYER (during the vote). Regular order.
  The SPEAKER (during the vote). The Chair would note that if, in fact, 
Members would read the Rules, 15 minutes is the minimum and the Chair 
has the option of keeping the vote open longer. The Chair would point 
out, this is regular order.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER (during the vote). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER. Only if it relates to the vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it does relate to the vote.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, can you, by any chance, give me the page 
number on which the Congressional Record reflects the views of the 
minority when Jim Wright held the vote open so that we can review those 
comments?
  The SPEAKER. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. But the Chair will 
get that for the distinguished gentleman in the near future.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it

                              {time}  1737

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Wolf for, with Mr. Hall of Ohio against.
       Mr. Lewis of California for, with Mr. Baldacci against.

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, and Mr. 
FAWELL changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Mr. PAUL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``present.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained this afternoon and 
was not present for several rollcall votes on H.R. 2607, the FY 1998 
District of Columbia Appropriations Act.
  I ask that the Record reflect that if I had been present and voting, 
I would have voted as follows: ``No'' on the Moran substitute amendment 
and ``yes'' on passage of H.R. 2607.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 513, final 
passage of the D.C. Appropriations bill, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays 
on the motion to reconsider.
  The SPEAKER. The Chair, having voted yea, the question is, ``Shall 
the House reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed?''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Objection. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the 
yeas and nays on the motion to reconsider. No one has made the motion 
to reconsider.


                 Motion To Table Offered By Mr. Hansen

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on 
the table.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Hansen] to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the 
vote as stated by the Chair.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 135, not voting 136, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 514]

                               AYES--162

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Brady
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--135

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Hamilton
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson

[[Page H8806]]


     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                            NOT VOTING--136

     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Deal
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     John
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kingston
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (OR)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Yates

                              {time}  1757

  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________