[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.

                          ____________________