[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9480-H9487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1830
EDUCATION IN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walsh). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is
recognized for 60 minutes as the Majority Leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for that recognition. I
want to also thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] for his five
minutes. That is a very important subject, and I think the gentleman
from Michigan is demonstrating that, irrespective of the relatively
painful political history that this subject has had, that the time may
be in fact at hand in America when indeed it will be required of us in
responsible public policy discourse to address these very pressing
problems that the gentleman has addressed in his five-minute talk.
I want to again commend the gentleman from Michigan, for not only his
insight into America's policy problems, but, frankly, his courage to
take on a subject that, for all too many years, has been one that has
not been appropriately and necessarily addressed in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a moment and give my regards
and appreciation to the very many dedicated Members of the House staff.
It is so often the case that long after the day's work is done and most
Members have gone about their business, that the dedicated staff of
this body remain for these matters we call ``special orders.''
Certainly, we recognize the importance of special orders, but, while
we do that, we ought to take a little time and recognize the staff's
willingness to bear up under that additional workload with good humor
and good grace.
As you know, it is not a matter of practice for me to do special
orders. That tendency that I have to refrain from doing so is
oftentimes in deference to the staff because they, too, have families.
They, too, are anxious to get home at night. I would only do that if I
felt compelled to do so with respect to a subject that is pressing in
the hearts and minds of the American people.
I would further like to predicate my comments, Mr. Speaker, by
bringing good news to the body. Our congressional family is made today
one person stronger, one person richer. David and Ruthie McIntosh today
gave birth to their very, very first baby, Elizabeth. I am sure they
will come to realize over the years, as I did, it is indeed your good
fortune when your first baby is a beautiful baby girl, as mine was. So
I am sure all the body would want to join me in expressing our
heartfelt congratulations to David and Ruthie, and our anticipation of
seeing Elizabeth as a member of our congressional family.
The subject that I would like to address during this period of time,
Mr. Speaker, is the subject of education in America. We have had some
initiatives brought to the floor. We have seen some debate on the
matter. We will talk about this subject this evening, and we will try
to have a serious discussion of this subject.
I would like to recognize those of my colleagues that are here before
I proceed very much further myself, but I do feel, Mr. Speaker,
constrained to say one thing: As we have had these debates, I have been
alarmed by the nature of the debate, particularly from the minority. It
should be understood and it should be accepted in this body that when
it comes to the matter of the education of our children, we are all
concerned and we are all dedicated, and that the kinds of hysterical
criticisms that have been levied against the initiatives brought to
this floor by Members of this body are no compliment to the body, and
certainly do very little to help the American people understand how
seriously this body takes that most important task of educating our
Nation's children.
It would be my fond hope that in the future all Members of this body
would be able to approach the debates with the kind of gentlemanly
demeanor and assertiveness, a point of view that we have seen as, for
example, in the persons of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] and
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], both from the other side of
the aisle, both people whose dedication to the children of this country
is not questioned and should not be questioned.
I will come back with some more discussion points of my own, but, as
I have said, we have so many Members that want to participate in this
discussion this evening, not the least of whom, and if the gentlemen
that are here will please abide me, if the gentleman from Florida will
please accept,
[[Page H9481]]
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rogan] has in fact with him in the
building this evening his own wife and children. They are waiting just
a few doors away, and I think we would all agree that it is perfectly
in the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish here that we
recognize the gentleman from California for his remarks, so he can
rejoin his wife and family for their evening meal in fact.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Rogan].
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the distinguished
majority leader, not only for according me the privilege of joining him
this evening, but I want to thank him and my colleagues for letting me
essentially cut in line.
It is true that my wife and my twin daughters are here this evening,
hopefully, watching their husband and father on television, from the
next room, with dinner waiting.
This truly is a family-friendly Congress, and when we cannot get home
to have dinner with our families, our families can come here to join
us.
I especially want to thank the majority leader for something far more
important and far more lasting than the courtesy he has extended to me
this evening. I want to thank the majority leader for being on the
front lines every day of his congressional career, making sure that
poor children throughout this country are afforded every opportunity
for a quality education.
The majority leader, Mr. Armey, has just successfully steered through
Congress a voucher program that will give 2,000 of the poorest children
in Washington, DC, the opportunity to get out of the worst schools in
our country and have the chance to receive the best possible education.
There is no political gain in this for the majority leader, who hails
from Texas. None of these children are his constituents. None of these
children will cast a vote for him. But they will cast something far
more important, the eternal gratitude of a child who receives a good
education and the gratitude of their parents who know what that means
for a child when they are given the chance to succeed
I would like to share with the body a personal story, one that I know
well, and one that deals with the subject of how important an education
is to a young child.
Back in the 1950's in San Francisco, there was a young lady named
Alice. She was somewhat rebellious. She moved out of her parents home
and took a job as a cocktail waitress. Before long, she became pregnant
by a bartender who refused to marry her. She would not have an illegal
abortion. She decided to have her child, a child that she could not
afford to raise, but a child she was intent on giving the best
opportunities possible with her limited means.
Alice and her parents made sure that that young boy was given an
opportunity to have a good education, and when some of the public
schools in downtown San Francisco were not producing results, they did
everything they could and used every penny they had to ensure that that
child was sent to a private school where rigorous academic standards
were taught and where skills like reading, writing, arithmetic,
history, and spelling, were taught.
They were only able to afford that for 1 year. Alice had a lot of
other difficulties. She had several other children and she married a
man who was an alcoholic. Eventually they divorced, and with her four
children lived on welfare and food stamps. They moved from community to
community, and yet she ensured that no matter what her personal
circumstances, she did everything possible to provide her children with
a good education.
I think that she was something of a success, because, despite the
fact that they had come from a family of alcoholism, illegitimacy, and
dependency on government, she still made sure her children got the best
education possible. Two of her sons became engineers, one of her sons
went on to a little community college and then a public university, and
then a public law school. He became a prosecutor, a judge, a
legislator, the majority leader of the California Legislature, and, Mr.
Speaker, last November, he was elected as a Member of Congress.
I know that story, Mr. Speaker, because Alice is my mother, and is
now 62 years old. She has never visited Washington, DC, until this
week, and I have the privilege of having my mother sitting in the
gallery tonight watching her son, as a Member of Congress, now able to
address an issue so important because he understands what it means to
his family. And Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that opportunity is
available to every child in this country.
The worst thing I witnessed in my life, was as a prosecutor in the
Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. Every single day of my
professional life, as both a prosecutor and a judge, I had a front-row
seat to see what happens when education fails: Gangs, drugs, crime.
That is the future to which we condemn young children when we fail to
provide them with educational institutions that are going to focus on
rigorous academic standards.
Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, over the last generation, many of our
public schools have abandoned those sacred things. And instead have
moved off into this ethereal world where psychologists are allowed to
bring every conceivable experiment into the public schools and
substitute rigorous standards for these experiments.
Now we have children in the public schools who are not given grades
because the teachers are afraid they might hurt their self-esteem.
We have public schools today where students are not taught phonics.
Instead they are taught to memorize the whole word, which educators
tell us gives them a vocabulary of about 300 or 400 words.
We have schools today, like in the school district where my family is
temporarily residing. We wanted to put our daughters in kindergarten
right across the river in Arlington. You know what we were told? We
were told that children in the public schools will be taught one-half a
day in English, and the other half of the day solely in Spanish.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want my 5-year-olds spending half their day in
a public school being taught in Spanish. I want them to learn the
language of international commerce. And when they are in high school,
after they have been given the tools to compete and excel and succeed
in this country, then if they want to learn a foreign language, let
them choose to do so.
Now, there is a remedy for middle and upper income people in this
country who are dissatisfied with their public school system. If they
have a school system that puts tenure above competency, if they have a
school system that wants to experiment on children rather than ensure
the children are given the tools to succeed, they have a remedy. They
can take them out of a public school, for which they are already paying
their taxes to support, and they can spend extra money to put their
children in private schools.
Now, that is fine, for parents who can afford it. But what about the
parents in this country who can least afford it? What about the parents
in this country who are on welfare, who are on food stamps? What about
single mothers, like my mother, struggling just to make sure their
children are given an opportunity?
I will tell you what happens to them. They are condemned to a life of
mediocrity and a life of not being able to succeed.
This is an abomination, and this must not continue. Members of this
Congress have a moral obligation to stand up to those special interests
of the status quo who fight time and time again, and who are very glib
at taking to the floor of this Chamber and talking about their concern
for children but who will vote time and time again against the
interests of those children.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to change, fight status quo and
provide all Americans with the tools to succeed.
{time} 1845
I would say to them that their day in the sun is over, because when
it comes to the future of the children of this country, we will fight
tonight, we will fight tomorrow, we will fight every single day that we
are here, and when we are not here and our successors take our place
that fight will continue, because we owe this country and the children
of this country no less.
We have an obligation as Members of this House to ensure that every
single child of this country has an opportunity to compete, and where
that opportunity is being denied, we have a
[[Page H9482]]
moral obligation to fight until their rights are secured, and until
that can happen.
So Mr. Leader, once again, I want to thank the gentleman for his
courage and his bravery, for his lifetime of commitment to this
particular issue. It is an honor to me to be able to stand with him
here in Congress tonight and add my voice to the growing list of those
who recognize the importance of freedom of choice in education.
I would just say to the gentleman that no matter how discouraged he
gets and no matter how tough the fight looks, there are going to be
millions of people a generation from now who are going to be able to
say, I owe the leaders of my country a debt of thanks, because they
gave me the opportunity to succeed in the greatest country that was
ever created. This will be the victory of the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Armey], and in advance I want to salute him for that.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and I
want to make the observation that on more than one occasion I have been
at events where private citizens were giving of their own personal
incomes to give, privately, scholarships for disadvantaged children to
attend schools of their choice with their parents. The gentleman from
California has been in attendance and been very supportive of that. So
whether it be a matter of public policy or private action, the
gentleman from California has, in fact, put himself on the line.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] had actually left
another engagement in order to be with us tonight, in anticipation of
including his remarks. When he saw the large number of people that were
here, he deferred to their presence.
I include for the Record the remarks of the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Delay].
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague, the
distinguished majority leader, has decided to take out this special
order regarding our efforts to improve the education system of this
Nation.
A famous philosopher once said that only the educated are free. Our
system today is doing a very poor job of promoting that freedom.
I believe that our education system fails because it lacks
accountability and subverts responsibility.
Rather than focusing on the quality of the education, the system all
too often focuses on preserving the status quo.
The status quo is simply not good enough.
We need to bring greater choices to parents. We need to put them in
the driver's seat when it comes to improving our education system.
Sadly, the President and the Democrat leadership have fought us on
education every step of the way.
What are they afraid of? Why do they refuse to change the status quo?
They are so beholden to labor unions they have forgotten the real
reason we have an education system in the first place: to prepare our
children for their futures.
We will continue to embark on an education agenda that stresses local
control, greater choices for parents, greater accountability for
teachers, and higher quality for students.
And we will resist efforts by the administration to bring greater
control to Washington, that emphasizes bureaucrats over parents, and
that wastes money in schemes that ultimately do not help the children.
We've put together a bold education improvement agenda designed to
help kids, parents, teachers, and local officials strengthen and reform
our Nation's education system:
We will send Federal education dollars to the classrooms, not to
Washington bureaucrats;
We want to return control over education to parents and local
communities;
We want to strengthen our commitment to basic academics;
We want to give the working-class and poor parents new education
choices--public and private--to educate their children in safe and
nurturing environments.
When it comes to school choice, I ask my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, what are you afraid of?
I was especially disappointed by the debate that we had over the D.C.
scholarship program.
This was a modest program that would have given 2,000 students in
Washington, DC, a better chance to go to a better school.
The costs were minimal but the principle was pure. Give parents a
choice and they will make the right decision for their children.
This drives the liberal establishment crazy. They want the power.
They want to make the decisions. They want to avoid accountability and
competition and responsibility.
So they fought this modest program with every ounce of their
strength. The President has threatened to veto the bill, while the
Democrats voted in lock step against it.
Why defend the status quo?
Too many D.C. schools have failed. They have failed to provide their
students the kind of education that will help them succeed. They have
failed to provide their students an atmosphere where they can learn.
They have failed to prepare them for the future.
The system has failed. Let's change the system.
But too many of my colleagues don't want change. They want to protect
the status quo. They want the money to continue to flow to a
bureaucracy that wastes money.
For example, since 1979, the D.C. school system has lost 33,000
students. But in that same time period, the size of the bureaucracy has
doubled.
What have the residents of the District of Columbia gained with this
bigger bureaucracy? Lower test scores, more dangerous hallways, and
more closed schools.
The time has come for school choice. The time has come to give
parents the opportunity to have a greater role in choosing the right
school for their children.
The time has come to inject accountability into a system that has
avoided accountability for too many hears.
Today, we voted on legislation that would give parents in middle-
class families greater opportunities to prpare their kids for the next
century by giving them education savings accounts.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, another gentleman that I know has a very big
heart for these matters, and is very busy and dedicated to them, is the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. David Weldon. I have known the gentleman
and his wife and their work on behalf of the children of this country
now for going on 3 years. Their heart is in it, they are dedicated to
it, and they so much believe in these youngsters, and I wanted to share
a few minutes with the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for
yielding, and thank him for his kind words. I would also like to
commend him in his initiative for many, many years on behalf of the
importance of improving education in the United States, and in
particular, in the area of school choice and its value in improving
education.
I am extremely pleased to see so many members of the Republican
Conference here, particularly the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and many of the
subcommittee chairmen: the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], and so many others who have
joined us tonight on behalf of school choice and the importance of
school choice.
Mr. Speaker, I will make my comments brief, because I know that many
of the gentlemen here are indeed authorities on this issue.
I have been very interested in school choice for a lot of reasons.
Probably one of the biggest reasons is my mother was an educator. She
was a schoolteacher. She always instilled in me the importance and
value of education. We clearly have a problem in our Nation today in
that many of our schools are failing. Many of our public schools are
not getting the job done. Educational performance has declined in the
United States over the past 30 years.
The approach of the past has always been to throw more money at the
problem. It has been very, very clearly demonstrated that that is not
the solution. One of the more innovative solutions is to give parents
more control over where they send their kids.
I was very pleased to be part of the initiative today to pass the A-
Plus legislation, which would allow parents to set aside some of their
money in a tax-free account, to use that money towards not only college
education, which is currently allowed under the law, but as well, for K
through 12.
The opponents of this have insisted that this is going to destroy
public education in the United States. Let me just say that I think
that is absolutely wrong. For them to even say that suggests to me that
they recognize that public education in many areas of our country is in
trouble. They must be so paranoid that people will stampede away from
those bad public schools that they are doing everything in their power
to protect them. We do not want to protect a failing system.
[[Page H9483]]
My own personal opinion is that those failing schools, in an
environment where there is school choice, will do better. They will not
do worse, they will do better, because they will be able to compete. I
have a higher opinion of those teachers in those public schools, that
they will be able to compete in a real marketplace.
The real issue here, in my opinion, is are we going to give school
choice to everybody. Because right now rich people have school choice.
Before I came to this House, I was a doctor. I practiced medicine back
home. I made a good salary. I had a lot of doctor friends. All my
doctor friends could send their kids to the schools of their choice.
The people who are locked into those failed public schools, and by
the way, there are a lot of good public schools in this country, most
of them are great, it is the middle-class families, it is the working-
class families, it is poor families, they have no choice.
But we have a lot of initiatives here that give choice to the working
class, choice to the poor people. We are trying to get them through
this House. We need to get the minority on board on these initiatives.
We need to get the President on board on these initiatives. I am very,
very happy to be here tonight and speaking out in support of school
choice.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida has just made a
very important point. It is precisely because we believe that the
competition that comes with choice and the involvement of parents
holding schools accountable is so critical that we believe that the
public schools institutionally will be the first, best beneficiaries,
and then, therefore, subsequently the children in the public schools,
from a systematic process of choice, parental involvement, and
discretion and accountability.
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] for raising
that point.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the
gentleman just hit on a really critical issue. The issue is the kids;
it is not the schools, not the bricks and the mortar, but it is the
kids, what is best for the kids.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, we also have the gentleman from the great
State of Pennsylvania, [Mr. Joe Pitts], who has invested a great deal
of his time and energy in this effort. I really appreciate the
opportunity to introduce the gentleman from Pennsylvania to talk about
an initiative of his to assure that more of our hard-earned tax dollars
actually, indeed, get into the classroom for the immediate service of
the children.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts].
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for his
leadership, along with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Bill
Goodling] on this issue, one of the most important components of our
American society, and that is educating our children.
I am very pleased that the House Republicans have dedicated
themselves to better educating our children. It has become painfully
obvious in this country that the answers to our education problems were
not, are not, and cannot be found in just arbitrary adjustments of
Federal funding levels. Yet, some of our more liberal colleagues here
in the House seem to think if we dump more money into crumbling
schools, all the problems will go away.
We have been down that road before. The House has finally decided to
address some new and innovative questions and solutions to the American
education experience. I would just like to speak briefly about one
initiative that we have focused our attention on. It supports our
public education system.
It is actually quite simple. It involves getting education dollars
directly in the hands of those who make our system work, those who have
a direct impact on the classroom experience, those who actually know
our children's names. It is called the Dollars to the Classroom
initiative.
Mr. Speaker, we know that effective teaching takes place when we,
one, begin helping children master basic academics; two, when parents
are engaged and involved in their children's education; three, when a
safe and orderly learning environment is created in the classroom; and
then, four, when dollars actually reach the classroom.
Each of us agrees that our Nation's children deserve an opportunity
to excel. We all know that this opportunity is inhibited when their
teachers and administrators are hampered by paperwork, by time
constraints, by financial hindrances just to apply for a Federal
education grant.
The Dollars to the Classroom resolution, which we will vote on next
week in this Chamber, calls upon the Federal Department of Education,
the State education departments, on local education agencies, to spend
a greater percentage of our Federal education tax dollars for our
children in the classrooms. This is common sense. For far too long
Americans' hard-earned tax dollars have gone to Federal bureaucrats,
they have churned through the Washington labyrinth, instead of
rightfully being placed in the hands of someone who knows the name of
each child.
When we look at the funding of our local schools, Federal education
dollars are actually a small percentage, rather small, only about 6 or
7 percent. That is a total of $15.4 billion, which goes for elementary
and secondary programs from the Federal Department of Education. When
we look at those dollars, the classroom may be lucky to see 65 percent
of that money. That means that billions of dollars are actually lost in
the labyrinth, the abyss of department studies, publications, grant
administration, and bureaucracy.
To apply for a Department of Education grant, it takes 216 steps, an
average of 21 weeks, just to apply. Additionally, the Department of
Education produces tens of thousands of publications every year, only
to be purchased for a small fee. I recently found out that anyone who
wants to purchase one, an average citizen or a Member of Congress or a
teacher, looking for a resource, must pay the Department of Education
$4.08 for a copy.
How would we rather have our Federal education dollars spent, on
studies like these? Let me list a few. There are 1,767 studies on
career planning, 140 studies on checklists, 13 studies on welding,
close to 100 studies on education researchers, researching their
research techniques, 260 studies on surveys, 26 studies on camping, 3
studies on cement, the concrete experience, 82 studies on calculators,
I think we are beginning to get the picture, all produced with taxpayer
dollars.
Next week we will vote, and my vote will be in support of tax dollars
going for things like providing more teachers, teacher aides,
purchasing updated software, state-of-the-art microscopes, using new
maps and globes of our world, and even seeing that every American
classroom is connected to the Internet and brought into the new
information age.
The classroom is where the action is. The classroom is where
knowledge grows and learning takes place, not in some Washington office
where miles upon miles of paperwork and publications are produced.
The Dollars to the Classroom initiative expresses a call on the
Department of Education to see that more departmental education,
elementary and secondary funds, get into the classrooms directly. If
this actually happens, much more money, in some cases as much as
$1,800, would be available for each classroom in the United States.
Even President Clinton has said, and I quote: ``We cannot ask the
American people to spend more on education until we do a better job
with the money we have got now.'' As he and Vice President Al Gore have
said, the reinventing of public education begins not in offices in
Washington, but in communities across the country.
We must ask the fundamental questions about how dollars which are to
go to the public school system are best spent. We must get more
efficiency out of the use of our tax dollars. Education dollars in the
classroom can make a tremendous difference and can enhance a child's
learning experience. This is not lofty Washington policy talk, this is
about kids, our kids, and a practical way to see that they benefit from
America's education tax dollars. The choice is clear, either our hard-
earned tax dollars go to the hands of Washington bureaucrats, or
directly to our children's teachers and classrooms.
[[Page H9484]]
{time} 1900
For the sake of our Nation's kids, I call upon every Member of this
House to vote to place children first. Next week vote for the Dollars
to the Classroom resolution. I hope the Members will support it.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, listening to that litany that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania has just read of the nature and the types and the
kinds of studies we pay for with our tax dollars now finally brought me
an awareness of what an old professor of mine meant when he said that
we in the university are special. We are not only thinking, but we even
think about our thinking. And perhaps he was inspired to that depth of
thought by reading brochures from the Department of Education. I cannot
be sure.
But if I may, Mr. Speaker, in the words of Johnny Cash, indeed the
immortal words of Johnny Cash, ``I've got a good one for you now.'' I
am so pleased about our next speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Goodling].
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years I labored in this body in the minority on
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities where our
leader in our effort on the committee was the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. I have come to know him and to know his work well. And
let me say, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation nor any reservation in
saying that in my estimation there is no person in this city who by
professional experience and depth of concern is more qualified to
understand and to legislate on behalf of the laudable goal and
objective of this Nation to educate its children than the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities who is, for me personally and I
recommend for you as well, my leader on education.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, well, I want to thank the Majority Leader
for taking this special order this evening because I know how deeply he
feels about every American child having an opportunity to receive a
high-quality education.
Mr. Speaker, I want to first pick up a little bit on what the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] said when he said there are good
public schools. I do not want people out there to believe that as a
Republican Party we believe all public schools are poor, that public
school teachers do a poor job.
I believe 70 percent of our public schools do very well. I believe 70
percent of our public school teachers do very well. However, they only
represent about 50 percent of our children in the United States, even
though they are 70 percent of the teachers and 70 percent of the
schools.
Mr. Speaker, as Republicans that is not good enough. We do not want
only 70 percent of our schools doing well. We do not want only 50
percent of our children receiving a quality education. What the
Majority Leader is insisting happen is that 100 percent of our schools
and 100 percent of our children receive a quality education.
Now, we believe that the same old Federal approach that we have had,
and as the Majority Leader was saying, we had to sit in that committee
and see promulgated over and over again, has failed and we do not
believe that just by doing more of the same or simply by adding more
programs things will change. When we sat there what we heard over and
over again is: We need more money. And when I would say, ``And what are
you going to do with more money?'' The answer was always, ``We can
cover more children.'' My response always was, ``If you are going to
cover them with mediocrity, you are not doing them a favor at all.''
So, Mr. Speaker, we think that there are new programs, we think that
there are new approaches to bring about a quality education for every
child. More money to cover more children, more programs--and I am sure
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] will talk about the number
we already have later--has not been the answer to our problem. We
believe parental involvement, we believe local control, we believe
basic academics are all ingredients that will improve our education for
all children.
Mr. Speaker, we just recently wrote as Republicans the President's
``America Reads'' program, and we produced a reading excellence
program. We approached it totally differently than the President did,
because we believed if there was a problem with reading, then perhaps
the first place we should start is make sure that our teachers have the
quality training needed and necessary to teach all children to read.
We believed that preschool reading readiness programs are extremely
important. The first grade child does not fail; the adults fail. And
the first grade child should also not be socially promoted. So we
believe if a kindergarten teacher says they are not ready to do first
grade work, then there should be something in between.
We also believe that tutorial assistance to first, second, and third
graders is very, very important. We cannot wait longer because once
they get beyond that stage, it is very difficult to change their
pattern and change their habits.
And we believe very strongly that we do not need $25,000 to $30,000
AmeriCorps, so-called ``volunteers,'' running all over the school.
First, it is an affront to the teacher, and secondly, if the teacher
has not been trained properly to do it, how do we believe that all of
these volunteers who come running in can make sure that every child can
read?
So we say use those college work-study students. Help reduce the debt
they have by the time they get to the end of college because of student
loans. Increase the amount of money available for college work-study.
Get the colleges ready to prepare them so that they can come and assist
the teachers, not emptying trash cans in a dormitory to receive that
money, but actually getting out and helping others. We believe they can
be mentors for those early childhood teachers and we believe they can
be role models.
So, again, Mr. Speaker, I join with the Majority Leader to face the
challenge that we have to meet, and that challenge is that every child
in this country is entitled to a quality education. But not only
entitled, if they do not receive it, we do not continue as the most
important Nation, and I am not ashamed to say that, in this world. Our
lifestyle will go down. Everything will change because in the 21st
century, the competition will be so tremendous, so great on the global
scale, that we cannot go on the way we are presently going and say
somehow or other we can meet the challenges of the 21st century.
So, again, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] very much for
taking this special order. But above all, I thank the gentleman for his
tremendous concern and his very deep feeling in relationship to the
education of all children in this country.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Listening to the gentleman's comments, the fact of the matter is the
Nation is concerned about the degree to which children are being failed
by these school systems. It reminds me of an old line from a
psychologist that the definition of ``crazy'' is doing more of the same
thing and expecting a different result.
We know that which we have been trying is not working for the
children. We must have the innovation and the courage to try something
different. Give them a chance. Dare to see what we can do. And,
incidentally, I am sure the gentleman would agree with me, we might
even dare to do some things the old-fashioned way, the way they worked
for the gentleman and me when we were children. Again, I thank the
gentleman and I appreciate him.
Mr. Speaker, another very dedicated member of our conference to this
whole proposition is the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. The
gentleman is one of the subcommittee chairmen on the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities and his commitment and knowledge
to the whole process of education is unparalleled in this city, with of
course the obvious exception of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling]), the chairman of the committee. But the gentleman from
California is dedicated and we look forward to his participation this
evening.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Majority Leader for yielding to
me, and I thank my colleagues for being here to participate in a
discussion of what I think is the most important subject that we could
consider on this House floor; namely, the education of
[[Page H9485]]
our children. I cannot not think of anything more important to the
future of our country than ensuring that all of our children, and they
are ``our'' children, receive a high quality education.
I was struck by, and I have said this before on the House floor and
it is too bad that some of our Democratic colleagues who were so
vociferous earlier today are not here on the floor for this special
order so we could have a genuine debate. But I was struck earlier today
when we were debating this idea on allowing families to invest after-
tax dollars, after they had paid all of their taxes, Federal, State and
local, property taxes, both real and personal property taxes, allowing
them to invest their own, hard-earned after-tax dollars in education
savings accounts and then using the interest built up in those accounts
to pay for a variety of things for their children in grades K through
12.
And we heard the class warfare coming from the other side, what I
call ``the politics of envy,'' and it was pretty clear to anybody who
listened to this debate today, particularly anybody across the land who
tuned in to our televised floor proceedings on C-SPAN, bless their
heart, which party is the more progressive party when it comes to
talking about real reform of our schools and educational improvement to
benefit every American child.
Mr. Speaker, it also was pretty clear what party was put in the
position earlier today of defending the status quo, and defending it,
as I hopefully pointed out in my comments, through I thought some
rather specious and I thought almost silly arguments; basically, as far
as I could determine, acting as a front or carrying water for the
education establishment, which, believe me, recoils at any notion of
competition or choice in our schools because competition and choice
might threaten their monopoly of financial control over our schools.
Talking about choice and competition in education, as the majority
leader pointed out, I do chair the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Youth and Families. I see my predecessor, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Cunningham], over here who chaired the committee in the last
Congress. We are known as the education subcommittee for Federal
education policy initiatives and funding programs for grades K through
12. We have held a series of hearings in this Congress on the idea of
giving parents more choices in the education of their children.
Mr. Speaker, one of the witnesses at an earlier hearing, this was a
hearing last month, was the Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Armey], who has organized this special order on the House floor
tonight. The Majority Leader has been a long time advocate of public
and private school choice as a means of holding existing schools more
accountable and expanding educational opportunities for our children,
especially those who are trapped due to socioeconomic circumstances in
unsafe or underperforming schools.
Mr. Speaker, I really found the Majority Leader's testimony most
compelling. In fact, it was really quite moving because the gentleman
spoke from the heart. In fact, I think he said that. He tossed aside
his prepared remarks and spoke from the heart.
The gentleman argued before our committee that when schools and local
elected decision-makers, because that is where ultimate accountability
rests, it rests with those elected school board members, school
trustees. I was one once. In fact, I was one for 5 years, including two
terms as the school board president. I had the distinction of serving
as school board president and Little League president during the same
year, so I think I got a real baptism in what politics are all about
during that year.
But the Majority Leader argued that it was those folks who encounter
their constituents every day at the corner drugstore or in their other
travels around the community, it is those folks who are ultimately
accountable to the people who elected them, their voters, and who are
accountable to parents, the ultimate consumers of education, and that
when we do make those local elected decision-makers truly accountable
to parents, who then have the freedom to choose where their children
are educated, then those schools will become good schools.
Mr. Speaker, if those schools do not improve, if they do not meet the
needs, do not meet the demands of education consumers, parents and
children, they will and should close. And yet all we hear from the
other side when we debate Federal education policy on this floor is
``more money.'' More money is the answer, even more money for the
District of Columbia public schools, which spend somewhere in the
neighborhood, although they cannot quite account for all the money,
between $9,000 and $10,000 per pupil per year. More money.
So here we have the rich irony of supposedly an education system in a
free enterprise system, in a market-based economy, where all we do to
try to correct the problem is throw money at it. In my view, and as the
Majority Leader has argued, the cost of failure should not be as it is
now, more money, more staff and more of everything. The price of
failure should be a closed school.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues how often have they heard of a
school closing? Even the schools here in the District of Columbia,
which could not get the roofs repaired, and the schools opened on time.
One other point I want to mention, and that is when the Majority
Leader appeared before us he also, I thought very effectively, rebutted
the argument that somehow allowing parents more freedom, more choice,
more say in where their kids go to school and what type of education is
most appropriate for their children, that somehow that choice, that
competition will destroy the public school system. Well, he rebutted
that argument and pointed out that scholarships or vouchers will
actually help save the public school system.
{time} 1915
The public school system, if you remember nothing else about what I
say tonight, for anybody listening, mark these words, the public school
system will reform itself only when parents are free to choose the
schools that they think are best able to educate their children. That
was the argument that the majority leader made before us when he
testified before our subcommittee. I could go on, but I want to give
others the opportunity to speak.
I did notice two recent newspaper articles. They really caught my
eye. I sent them out through a Dear Colleague. These were two recent
newspaper articles, both national publications, that reported that
increased competition in response to the demands of parents and their
concerns about the quality of the education that their child is
receiving is gradual and that this is slowly but surely happening,
gradually forcing the public school system to react.
I sent these articles around to all of my colleagues' offices because
I thought they were so important and merited attention, because I think
they really do signal a major new trend in education and are sort of a
harbinger of things to come.
First, USA Today, on September 28, late last month, reported that 12
major education groups, basically the education establishment, because
it consists of the National Teachers Unions, the National Congress of
the PTA, the national associations of both elementary and secondary
school principals, they have all joined together to form a new
alliance, ostensibly to improve public education. However, it appears
that the real purpose, the real agenda behind the formation of this
establishment group is their desire to thwart the growing effort, not
just on our part, but on the part of parents and families in hundreds
of thousands of communities around this country to infuse more
competition, more parental choice into our education system.
Listen to what USA Today reported. Criticism of public schools for
poor academic achievement, low standards, and violence has given rise
to proposals to provide taxpayer-funded vouchers, tuition grants or
opportunity scholarships, for parents. Yes, that means giving parents
the full range of choice among all competing institutions, public,
private and parochial.
These large, well-funded, vested interests, these are interests that
have a self-interest, a financial interest, oppose parental choice
because it threatens their monopoly of financial control. But these
interests just do not get
[[Page H9486]]
it because, as the majority leader himself said when he testified
before our committee, and I quote him now, schools exist to serve our
children, not bureaucracies. And the interests of the children should
supersede all other interests. Just as simple as, put the children
first.
The second article ran on October 1, the beginning of this month,
three days after the publication of the USA Today article. It ran in
the Washington Post, not exactly known, at least in this town inside
the Washington beltway, as a conservative publication. The article was
entitled, Popularity Grows for Alternatives to Public Schools, Some
School Districts React to the Threat of Competition.
The article began by saying, in a movement flustering schools across
the Nation, more parents than ever are choosing alternatives to public
education for their children, including public charter schools,
religious schools and home schooling.
So much, so much that what once seemed only a fad to many educators
is today instead starting to resemble a revolution. And it concludes in
that article by quoting Robert Chase, President of the National
Education Association Teachers Union, saying, I am not sure if any of
us really know where these trends are leading us, but it had better
make us take a hard new look at what we are doing in public education.
That from the words of the President of the largest teachers union in
the country.
Speaker Gingrich has said, schools should be a magnet, not a trap.
As I said earlier, the education system will reform itself only when
parents are free to choose the schools and the education that they
think are best for their children. That is why we are bringing out to
the House floor a series of choice initiatives, beginning two weeks ago
with opportunity scholarships for 2,000 District of Columbia families,
continuing today with the A plus education savings accounts, and
concluding next week with the bipartisan bill to expand public school
choice through the creation of more independent charter schools. These
are public charter schools that are deregulated, decentralized, where
the decisionmaking occurs on site and which are truly treated in an
autonomous manner for fiscal and legal purposes and then also our HELP
scholarships bill, which will build on the proven success of
opportunity scholarships or tuition grants for low-income parents in
Milwaukee and Cleveland and try to expand that program nationwide.
I am pleased to join the majority leader and my colleagues tonight on
the House floor for this very special special order. As I said at the
outset, I do not think that there is anything more important to the
future of our country than the education of our children. I thank the
majority leader and commend him for his leadership.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, we have with us tonight the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Bob Schaffer].
I would like to make a few comments. I have had the opportunity to
visit with Mr. Bob Schaffer on very, very many occasions about
education. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Riggs] has let my secret out. It is no secret. This is a matter,
with me, of the heart.
These children are so special, so precious, so deserving of the same
opportunity every place in America as everyone else that you must do
your best. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaffer] knows that.
The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaffer], in the conversations I
have had with him, has told me so many times so clearly how critically
important is excellence in public education to the larger mission of
educating children in this Nation, how precious and dear is the public
school system of this country, and how very proud he is of the schools
in Colorado.
Now, when we feel passionately about something, when we truly care
about something, when, in fact, it is something that really is a flame
in our heart, we will oftentimes express that. And sometimes we will
express it in such a manner as to put ourselves in harm's way, Mr.
Speaker. I can tell you, I was the first Member of Congress ever to
prove that I am able to shoot myself in the foot while I have it in my
mouth.
But I never said something in a clumsy manner that I did not care
about. Mr. Bob Schaffer has expressed his concern and his commitment to
education and unhappily, I know, expressed his feelings in strong
language. But what is unfair and what is not acceptable, if we are
going to have responsible discourse, is that the gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, has been jumped on. We have Members running
all over this place feigning moral outrage and trying to build a
caricature of his concern into something other than what it is.
Knowing about this, when I decided to do this special order, I made
it a point to find the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, and
to ask him if he would be willing to come over here this evening so
that America can see the Bob Schaffer of concern and commitment to
excellence in public education, excellence in education for every child
of this Nation, a matter of his heart that I know to be profound and
deep.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Bob Schaffer], my friend and my colleague.
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for
yielding to me and for those kind words. What you described is really
akin to a scene out of the Empire Strikes Back, because that is exactly
what we experience and the passion that you mentioned, which I share
with you, on the opportunity that we have here to really improve the
quality of public education throughout the country. There are those who
believe that our discussions about empowering parents and empowering
children and empowering teachers treating them in fact like real
professionals, that those values that we fight for here every day are
somehow a threat to the large centralized bureaucratic monopoly that
many wish to preserve.
There are many who want to centralize education authority right here
in Washington, D.C. and steal that authority from our classrooms, from
our school board members, from our principals, from our State
legislators and bring all that authority here.
We are fighting on a daily basis to decentralize education authority
and treat parents like real customers, to understand that it is parents
who have the greatest concern for their children.
I want to start with myself. I have got four children, three of them
are in public schools today. And those are public schools that I have
spent an incredible amount of time volunteering and working in. I have
come to the conclusion that school reform takes place when parents are
involved. Every initiative that we have discussed here in this Congress
has been about that particular philosophy.
Let me point out a couple of statistics that I think really dramatize
what it is we are trying to change. A smaller share of school dollars
are now being spent on student classroom instruction than at any time
in our history. Between 1960 and 1984, local school spending on
administration and other noninstructional functions grew at almost
twice the rate of per pupil instructional expenditures.
In 1960, classroom teachers made up almost two-thirds of the full-
time school staff. Today, they make up barely more than half.
Conversely, the nonteaching staff was barely more than a third of the
full-time student staff in 1960, but almost half today.
One more statistic, fewer than half of all public education dollars
are spent in the classroom. They are spent on bureaucrats, on support
personnel, on administrative buildings, but fewer than half are spent
on children in the classroom. That is what we have been discussing over
the last few weeks here in this Congress on the floor of the House,
real education reform, treating parents like customers and teachers
like real professionals. I trust the teachers in my district. They have
done remarkable things to reform the way we educate children.
Let me say on this point, if you consider the bureaucratic model that
most teachers are forced to comply with today, you have a system which
does the following: The absolute best teacher in the district is paid
in the exact same way as the absolute worse teacher in the district. By
that standard, is it any wonder that our teachers feel frustrated. They
have an incredible job.
[[Page H9487]]
They go to school to learn how to teach. They are dedicated and bring
a personal passion to the job that is before them. Then they are thrown
into a classroom situation where they are not treated like
professionals, where they are asked to do more than teach children.
They are asked to be social workers, guidance counselors, drug
rehabilitators and, on occasion, substitute parents.
Many teachers rise to that occasion and they respond remarkably well.
But I say this, if we really want to treat teachers like real
professionals, I would suggest that we ought to create a system where
they are allowed to become incredibly wealthy, that the value of a
teacher is measured by their contribution to the organization. If they
have a line of parents outside their door wanting their service, they
ought to be treated like real professionals, like the doctor who has
the same situation, like the lawyer who has clients waiting outside the
door, like the insurance agent, the real estate agent, any professional
that has people wanting their service ought to be able to be treated in
a way that honors and respects the contributions that they make to
their community, to their school and ultimately to the lives of
children.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that if you listen very carefully to the
debates that have taken place over the last couple weeks, if you want
to define the essence, the difference between those of us who really
care about improving the quality of schools in our country and those
who want to preserve the centralized authority here in Washington, it
all comes down to this, and I will conclude on this point. There are
those in this Chamber on the other side of the aisle with a far
different perspective who believe you measure fairness in education by
the relationship between school buildings or different education
bureaucracies.
We, on the other hand, believe you measure education fairness in
America upon the relationship between children, no matter where they
are, whether they are educated in the home, in a private school, in a
public school or in any other setting. We focus on the fairness of
children. That is what every one of our bills and initiatives here in
Washington as a conservative Republican majority have entailed.
That is what we will continue to fight for day. After day. After day
until at the end we can finally agree that we have restored the hope
and the vision of our country as a society of well-educated citizens.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Bob Schaffer]. I knew his position on this matter. I know his
heart.
Mr. Speaker, this subject commands such a commitment among the
Members of the House that we have found ourselves this evening with an
embarrassment of riches on the subject. We had the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. DeLay], who came in earlier, had to go out to another discussion.
We had the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], who had to go off
and will be back later to renew his discussions on this subject. We
have the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], who sat and waited
until it became evident that the time would run out and she would not
be able to participate this evening, but who has a commitment to this.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, we have my good friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham], who still sits here and waits his turn as
the clock runs down.
{time} 1930
If I could close, Mr. Speaker, on this comment. Duke Cunningham is a
man who is devoted to these children. His wife is a professional
educator. Duke has himself been an educator among his many occupations
in life. I have worked with him on the committee that deals with
education. He has a great deal to offer and in fact has offered and
given a great deal already. It is our loss that we did not have time
for Mr. Cunningham to speak in this hour this evening, but I can tell
you the blessing is that he will not quit, he will not go away, he will
be back and when he returns to the subject, he says each child will be
cared for.
Mr. Cunningham is so enthusiastic about speaking, he has just
suggested, Mr. Speaker, that I ask unanimous consent that my special
order be extended for 5 minutes so that indeed he can have an
opportunity to speak.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walsh). The gentleman's request is not
in order. The procedure is that a Member may not address the House for
more than 1 hour in a special order.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the Speaker and I thank Mr. Cunningham for his
devotion and dedication.
____________________