[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2028-E2029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS, MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM, AND 
                      EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JULIAN C. DIXON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 9, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2607 and in 
support of the Moran substitute. As you will hear during this debate, 
there are a litany of reasons why the House should pass the substitute 
and adopt the Senate language. From micromanagement of the District to 
tort reform to the controversial provisions on school vouchers, this 
bill represents a step backward from efforts to bring fiscal sanity and 
reform to the government of the Nation's Capital.
  What we should do is work together with the locally elected 
government of the District of Columbia and the federally appointed 
Control Board to move forward on implementation of the D.C. reform plan 
passed in the budget agreement. What we choose to do is to put 
roadblocks in the way of that forward movement by adopting extraneous 
provisions that have absolutely no business on this appropriations 
bill.
  I have no illusions about the prospects for passing this substitute 
amendment. It would be too reasonable to assume that Members of the 
majority might put their leadership's zeal to make ideological points 
aside in the best interests of the Nation's Capital. Every Member 
should understand that by voting against the Moran substitute, we 
dispense with the possibility of quick enactment of this bill; we set 
up a clear possibility for veto; and we do a disservice to the very 
people we profess to be so concerned about--the citizens of the 
District of Columbia.
  Much of the debate today will focus on the most controversial aspect 
of this legislation which the majority will maintain is essential to 
the well-being of D.C. children--the so-called Student Opportunity 
Scholarship program. I regret that I find it necessary, as others will, 
to spend my debate time concentrating on this issue, rather than 
broader concerns facing Washington, DC.
  It is inconceivable to me that the leadership of this House believes 
that it is more important to hold up enactment of a bill that is a 
vital piece of our efforts to revive the District for all its children, 
in order to make its ideological statement on the value of school 
vouchers. But since that is the course they choose, let's look at the 
program that the majority argues is an answer to the problems besetting 
the District of Columbia public schools.
  H.R. 2607 authorizes $45 million over 5 years to fund tuition and 
tutoring scholarship--vouchers--for D.C. students. Rather than a boon 
to D.C. schools and her students, this provision is a vote of no 
confidence in the newly appointed school leadership committed to 
improving public education; it injects the controversial issue of 
funding religious schools with public money; and it a structurally 
deficient piece of authorization legislation on an appropriations bill.
  Voucher proponents often refer to the failures of the school system, 
documented in a November 1996 study conducted by the District of 
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. 
The study ``Children in Crisis,'' revealed numerous problems with the 
District's public school, noting that the system ``has failed to 
provide our children with a quality education and safe environment in 
which to learn.'' The Authority found that D.C. students consistently 
rank below national average scores on tests of competency and student 
achievement, school administrators fail to adequately manage resources, 
and the infrastructure is in need of major improvements.
  I do not stand here in defense of the management and instructional 
quality of the D.C. school system. However, the story of the public 
schools should not end with the bad news. We all hear about what's 
wrong with the D.C. schools, but what about those public schools that 
are doing things right?
  Walker Jones Elementary School in Northwest Washington is working 
with the Laboratory for Student Success program using Community for 
Learning, a research-based school reform model. The concept is called 
whole school reform, and is characterized by intensive teacher training 
methods and materials geared toward better student learning. As a 
result, student test scores have improved. After 6 months in the 
program, the school raised its ranking in the District on reading 
scores from 99th in 1996 to 36th in 1997. In math, the school climbed 
from 81st in the District to 18th.
  All of Eastern Senior High School's 1997 graduates of its Health and 
Human Services Academy--more than 400--were accepted to college. The 
Health and Human Services Academy is a special high school program that 
prepares its participants to enter the health and human services field 
immediately upon graduation or to pursue postsecondary education in a 
related field. The Academy was developed through a partnership with the 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
  At Stuart Hobson Middle School, the school's Odyssey of the Mind team 
won second place in the national competition's classics category--in 
which 5,000 teams competed nationwide. Hobson features a museum magnet 
program in which the school offers courses, seminars, labs, and field 
experience in conjunction with the Smithsonian.
  The Nalle School and the Freddie Mac Foundation are working together 
to create the District's first full-service community school, to 
address the wide range of family needs. Working with service 
organizations, parents, educators, and community leaders, it is 
becoming a major hub of community activity.
  We should be insisting on and facilitating the replication of these 
successes in D.C. schools. Instead, we fight over funneling taxpayer 
money to private schools, emphasizing failures rather than seeking to 
enhance successes.
  For the sake of argument, let us assume that there are private school 
slots for the 2,000 kids eligible for vouchers with a maximum value of 
$3,200. We have to assume, because as the Washington Post of September 
30 stated it would be difficult to find those slots given that the vast 
majority of secular private and religious schools charge more than 
$3,200 for tuition. Nevertheless, if we could find those 2,000 
openings, what exactly does our voucher experiment prove? That we can 
spend public money on private schools for 3 percent of the District's 
students? Is the inference that if we are successful with this 
laboratory experiment in the District, then we can embark on a 
wholesale abandonment of the public schools in the District? Are we 
prepared to give the minimum voucher amount of $2,400 to every District 
student who would be eligible? That's 50,000 vouchers at a cost of over 
$100 million.
  From the Republican leadership's strident support of vouchers, and 
their denigration of the public schools, one get the impression that no 
one is working to turn the tide? That is simply not the case.
  In response to their study's findings, the members of the Authority 
embarked on a bold initiative to shake up the school system by 
implementing a new management structure with a mandate to improve the 
public schools. On November 15, 1996, the Authority appointed Gen. 
Julius W. Becton as chief executive officer and superintendent of DCPS 
and established the Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees.

  Although General Becton has been on the job for less than a year, he 
has already taken significant steps to improve the public schools. He 
has developed an academic plan focusing on high standards and 
accountability for results; redesigned the budget structure to hold 
managers accountable for spending; and implemented comprehensive 
security and facilities' management plans. These efforts hold much 
promise for the system and Congress ought to be emphasizing our support 
for these objectives.
  Instead, we put forth a proposal which will not improve public 
education and is probably

[[Page E2029]]

unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has consistently held that public 
funds cannot pay, either directly or indirectly, for the religious 
education or the religious mission of parochial schools. Although 
public funds may be used for secular purposes in religious schools, 
regular everyday instruction at a religious elementary or high school 
would not qualify because such schools are seen as mainly sectarian in 
nature.
  The Supreme Court ruled this year that public funding of certain 
instruction in parochial schools is severely limited. In the June 23 
decision, the Court ruled 5 to 4 in Agostini versus Felton that title I 
services--remedial math and reading instruction provided to 
disadvantaged children--are permissible in private religious schools 
because the instruction offered is secular in nature and overseen by 
public school personnel. Rather than pave the way for vouchers, Justice 
Sandra Day O'Connor emphasized that under title I no Government funds 
``ever reach the coffers of religious schools.'' She further stated 
that this aid does not ``relieve sectarian schools of costs they would 
otherwise have borne in educating their students.''
  Proponents of these scholarships or vouchers might argue there is no 
underlying agenda to fund religious schools. Then why include section 
348, subsection (a) in the bill which reads:


       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to bar any eligible 
     institution which is operated, supervised, or controlled by, 
     or in connection with, a religious organization from limiting 
     employment, or admission to, or giving preference to persons 
     of the same religion as is determined by such institution to 
     promote the religious purpose for which it is established or 
     maintained.


  Educational choice is held up by voucher supporters as the main 
reason that Members should embrace this bill. Choice for whom? We agree 
that the D.C. schools are not doing the job we want in providing a 
high-quality education to all D.C. students. How do we solve that 
problem by providing an opportunity for 2,000 to 3,000 students to 
attend private schools, leaving behind the remaining 75,000, or 97 
percent, of students in the D.C. schools.
  D.C. residents did not ask for this. The GOP's argument that D.C. 
religious leaders wholeheartedly endorse vouchers has been refuted by 
the ministers themselves. The Washington Post of October 6, 1997 
reported that the ministers feel that the program was misrepresented to 
them by proponents.
  The process by which this provision found its way in the bill is 
faulty--no hearings were held--and the structure of the program is 
faulty. It creates another bureaucracy for the District to contend 
with--a scholarship corporation with a board of directors and staff. 
This board is to be paid a stipend of up to $5,000 a year. Not even the 
financial management authority, appointed by the President 2 years ago 
to improve the operations of the District, receives payment for their 
thankless efforts.
  The application and participation requirements for eligible schools 
are laughable. To apply, a school must show that it had more than 25 
students in the preceding 3 years; submit an annual budget; and 
describe the proposed instructional program. To remain eligible, a 
school only has to provide the corporation with an annual budget 
statement, and certify that it has not charged a voucher student more 
than the cost of tuition, fees, and transportation to attend the 
school.
  Such lax requirements could give rise to fly-by-night schools which 
open just to receive voucher money. In Milwaukee, two voucher schools 
closed last year as a result of criminal fraud charges. At least four 
other Milwaukee voucher schools closed during the first 4 years of the 
program, three of them in the middle of the school year. We need 
accountability, not soft reporting requirements.
  Finally, voucher supporters argue that since the D.C. schools are 
withering on the vine already, why not give a few parents a chance to 
offer their child a better education? We need a vote of confidence for 
General Becton, who has faced a host of problems during his brief 
tenure, but is making progress. We need to assist the public schools by 
holding administrators and teachers accountable while ensuring that 
infrastructure and instruction needs are met. We need a comprehensive 
review of the best practices in the D.C. schools and apply those models 
to schools that are not performing. We do not need this ill-advised 
voucher experiment.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Moran substitute and 
move D.C. reforms forward in a manner which accrues to the benefit of 
all its citizens and all its children.

                          ____________________