[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.
____________________