[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9814-H9832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2746, HELPING EMPOWER LOW-INCOME
PARENTS (HELP) SCHOLARSHIPS AMENDMENTS OF 1997 AND H.R. 2616, CHARTER
SCHOOLS AMENDMENTS OF 1997
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 288
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2746) to amend title
VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to
give parents with low-incomes the opportunity to choose the
appropriate school for their children. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The bill shall be debatable
for two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. After disposition of the bill (H.R. 2746), the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
[[Page H9815]]
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2616) to amend titles VI and X of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve and expand charter
schools. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. Before consideration of any other
amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, if offered by Representative Goodling of
Pennsylvania or his designee. That amendment shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for ten minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. If that amendment is
adopted, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended, shall be considered as the original
bill for the purpose of further amendment. During
consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6
of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 2616, the Clerk
shall--
(1) add the text of H.R. 2746, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.R. 2616;
(2) conform the title of H.R. 2616 to reflect the addition
of the text of H.R. 2746 to the engrossment;
(3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(4) conform provisions for short titles within the
engrossment.
(b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 2746 to the
engrossment of H.R. 2616, H.R. 2746 shall be laid on the
table.
Sec. 4. House Resolution 280 is laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, Wednesday, the Committee on Rules met and reported House
Resolution 288, which will provide a rule for consideration of two
bills before us today. The first is a closed rule for the consideration
of H.R. 2746, the HELP Scholarships Amendments Act of 1997.
That rule provides for 2 hours of debate on the bill, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule provides one motion
to recommit.
The second bill in the resolution, H.R. 1616, the Charter Schools
Amendments of 1997, will be considered under an open rule. The rule
provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce. It further makes in order a Committee on Education
and the Workforce amendment in the nature of a substitute as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment which shall be considered as
read.
A manager's amendment printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules, if offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling],
the chairman, or his designee, is made in order by the rule. That
amendment is considered as read, is not subject to amendment or to a
division of the question, is debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided
between a proponent and an opponent, and if adopted is considered as
part of the base text for further amendment purposes.
The Chair may give priority recognition to Members who have
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Votes may be
postponed during consideration of the bill and reduced to 5 minutes if
the postponed vote follows a 15-minute vote. One motion to recommit
with or without instructions is provided.
House Resolution 288 further provides in the engrossment of H.R.
2616, the Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 2746 as passed by the House,
as a new matter at the end of H.R. 2616, and make conforming and
designation changes within the engrossment.
Following engrossment, H.R. 2746 shall be laid on the table. That is,
should the HELP Scholarships bill pass today, it will be combined with
the Charter Schools bill, provided that it passes, when it is sent to
the other body.
The final section of House Resolution 288 provides that House
Resolution 280 is laid on the table. House Resolution 280 is a
resolution providing for the consideration of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act which was never used. This small provision in House Resolution 288
is a technical committee cleanup procedure and has no bearing on the
consideration of H.R. 2746 or H.R. 2616.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear about what will happen if this
resolution is passed. It will allow for separate consideration of the
HELP Scholarships bill and the Charter Schools bill. Each bill would be
debated under separate rules. If they both pass, they will be put
together in a package and sent to the other body for consideration.
Members will have an opportunity to vote individually on each bill.
This resolution merely allows us to take them both up today.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not a vote on vouchers as some may
lead Members to believe. It is a vote to determine if this body wants
to bring these two important bills to the floor for a debate. I hope my
colleagues support this resolution so that we can have an important
debate about education in America.
During consideration of House Resolution 288 in the Committee on
Rules, there was some discussion about the way the HELP Scholarships
bill is being brought to the floor. I would like to take this
opportunity to explain the reason for this process, and I plan to yield
time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, which has
jurisdiction over this matter, so that he may offer further
clarification about the process which brought the HELP Scholarships to
the floor.
When the Charter Schools bill was being crafted, the original intent
was to add HELP Scholarships to the bill as an amendment. However, the
Charter Schools bill evolved as a very bipartisan one, particularly due
to the hard work of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. Thus, in
the spirit of bipartisanship, the decision was made to not offer the
HELP Scholarships language as an amendment.
Today we are again going to debate the future of education in
America. I believe that it is the duty of all Americans to ensure our
children are well educated and prepared for the future. I also believe
that low-income families should have the same opportunity to send their
children to safe, effective schools as rich families. This is about
children.
The crisis in American education today especially affects children in
elementary and secondary education. The education system is failing
them and leaving too many children unprepared for the future.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider the following: 40
percent of all 10-year-olds cannot meet basic literacy standards;
eighth graders recently placed 28th in the world in math and science
skills; over 60 percent of 17-year-olds cannot read as well as they
should; and 2,000 acts of violence take
[[Page H9816]]
place in schools every day. Children in Los Angeles are taught a drill
to protect themselves at the sound of gunfire, and almost one-third of
freshmen entering college require some sort of remedial instruction.
We have a moral obligation to fix these problems and without bold new
ideas and innovative solutions we never will.
The first bill, H.R. 2746, the Helping Empower Low-Income Parents
Scholarships Amendment Act of 1997, is a very controversial issue, but
one I wholeheartedly support. The bill empowers low-income parents
living in poverty-stricken areas to send their children to the best
schools that they see fit. Specifically, it permits State educational
agencies and local educational agencies to use their title VI education
block grant funds for public and private school choice at the State and
local levels, and this is purely voluntary. In order to access these
funds, the State legislature must enact school choice legislation. The
bill further stipulates that the school choice program would be in low-
income communities and be limited to low-income families.
Last week, we passed a bill that allows families to use money from an
education savings account for school-related expenses. Many people
opposed to the bill said that their opposition was based on the fact
that it would not benefit the poor. Well, I did not agree with them on
that issue; they now have an opportunity to vote on a bill that is
designed specifically for the poor. I hope that they will join me in
support of this bill and will empower the very people they claimed to
defend last week.
Mr. Speaker, others have raised questions about the constitutionality
of HELP Scholarships. As long as the decision about where the funds are
spent is in the hands of individual students or parents, and as long as
the program does not discriminate, a choice plan is likely to survive a
constitutional challenge.
The Federal Government already provides grants to students at private
and religious colleges. Pell grants are awarded to college students
based on financial needs and Pell grants are accepted at numerous
private and religious schools. I have heard many of my colleagues fight
hard for Pell grants, and I hope that those same people will come to
the floor today and support a similar idea that will allow students
based on financial need the same opportunity for elementary and
secondary education.
In addition to Pell grants, the Federal Government allows the GI bill
to cover tuition at seminaries. That is Federal money going to
religious education, not just to a religious school. I do not hear any
of my colleagues clamoring to take this ability away from recipients of
the GI bill.
I ask my colleagues, is that not Federal money? Is that not money
going to private and religious schools? What is the difference?
The best part about programs like HELP Scholarships is that they
work. Elementary school students in Milwaukee who participated in the
Nation's first school voucher program scored higher in reading and math
than those who stayed in public schools.
{time} 1015
The school choice option we are offering today is steadily gaining
support across the Nation. A survey conducted by USA Today, CNN, and
Gallup poll found that 54 percent of Americans favored vouchers. A
majority of the grassroots organizations supporting education vouchers
and school choice programs are from minority communities.
A survey conducted by the joint center for political and economic
studies found that 57 percent of African-Americans supported school
vouchers for public, private, or parochial school. This is not
surprising since black children in urban areas are the most endangered
by the failures of public education. In fact, support among African
Americans for education reform is fast outstripping the growth of
enthusiasm among whites.
The argument that public education is the greatest equalizer is
unfortunately falling on deaf ears in the poorest neighborhoods. That
is where the schools are the worst. Large numbers of public schools in
these areas are exclusive and segregated. Ironically, private religious
schools in many urban areas are more consistent with the original
concept of public education bringing together children of widely
differing social and economic backgrounds. The HELP scholarships will
allow more of these children to get the quality education they deserve.
They very well may be the real equalizer of the future.
This resolution also grants a rule for consideration of H.R. 2616,
the Charter Schools Amendment Act of 1997. This is somewhat less
controversial. It enjoys broad bipartisan support and also deserves the
support of all my colleagues.
Charter schools are innovative public schools which are set free from
burdensome regulations and held accountable for their results. Since
the inception of charter schools in Minnesota 6 years, ago the idea has
swept the Nation. Currently, 29 States, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico have charter schools. Though this is a new concept, it is
helping to transform public education in a way that is beneficial to
the children that attend them. Parental satisfaction is high, students
are eager to learn, teachers can enjoy their jobs again, administrators
are freed from the shackles of suffocating regulation, and more money
is getting to the classroom where it belongs.
In light of this success, we need to expand the current program so
that we can reach more children in more communities. This bill is a
good one that carefully targets the new money. It directs money to
those States that provide a high degree of fiscal autonomy, allow for
increases in the number of charter schools from year to year and
provide for accountability. It also increases the number of years a
charter school can get a grant from 3 to 5 years. This bill also
stipulates that 95 percent of the Federal charter schools money goes to
State and local level. That way we can be sure the Federal bureaucracy
is not wasting money that is intended for the kids.
Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Education to make sure
that charter schools are on level ground so that they will receive
their fair share of Federal categorical aid such as title I and special
education funding. The Secretary is also directed to assist charter
schools in accessing private capital.
I am excited about both of the bills this resolution brings to the
floor, and I know that many of my colleagues do not share my
enthusiasm. They have had philosophical disagreements with the intent
of these new and innovative ideas. This resolution accommodates them.
It allows for a separate vote on each bill. It allows them to vote
their conscience without having to compromise their philosophical
beliefs. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 288 so that
we may have a spirited debate on the important issues facing America's
families.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
(Ms. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to proceed out of
order.)
Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of
Privileges of the House
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule
IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which
raises a question of the privileges of House.
I ask unanimous consent that the form of the resolution appear in the
Record at this point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of
election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th
District of California by the Secretary of State of
California and was seated by the U.S. House of
Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the
Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996;
and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in
Washington, D.C., on April 19, 1997 in Orange County,
California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been
largely found to be
[[Page H9817]]
without merit: charges of improper voting from a business,
rather than a resident address; underage voting; double
voting; and charges of unusually large number of individuals
voting from the same address. It was found that voting from
the same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile
of nuns, that business addresses were legal residences for
the individuals including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana
zoo, that duplicate voting was by different individuals and
those accused of underage voting were of age; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued
unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to compare their records with Orange County voter
registration records, the first time in any election in the
history of the United States that the INS has been asked by
Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request
and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual
check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing
supplemental information on that manual check to the
Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the
record seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on
February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records
pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
Whereas the House Oversight Committee is now pursuing a
duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the
Committee's possession by the Secretary of State of
California; and
Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the
46th District of California and the Committee have been
reviewing these materials and has all the information it
needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the
information it needs to make the judgements concerning those
votes; and
Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over
nine months of review and investigation failed to present
credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of
Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and
unsubstantiated areas of review; and
Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided
credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other
than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
Whereas, on Committee on House Oversight has demanded that
the Justice Department bring criminal charges against
Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, even through it is beyond the
Constitutionally-defined powers of Congress to compel
compliance with subpoenas; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete
its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end
and now therefore be it;
Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has
sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition,
the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed
upon the expiration of November 7, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX a resolution offered from the
floor by a Member other than the majority leader or minority leader as
a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence only
at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after the
resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the
gentlewoman from Missouri will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
(Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank my colleague from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] for yielding
this time to me.
This resolution in my opinion is a hybrid rule. It provides for the
consideration of H.R. 2746, which is the Helping Empower Low-Income
Parents Scholarship Amendments of 1997 under a closed rule. The
resolution also provides for the consideration of H.R. 2616, the
Charter Schools Amendments of 1997. This is under an open rule.
H.R. 2746 permits title VI education block grant funds to pay for
educational vouchers that low-income parents can use at public or
private schools. H.R. 2616 authorizes funds to start up charter
schools.
As my colleague from North Carolina has described, this rule provides
2 hours of general debate for H.R. 2746, and 1 hour for H.R. 2616.
H.R. 2746 was introduced just 2 days ago. There were no hearings,
committee markups, or committee reports. This closed rule effectively
guarantees that no Member will have a chance to offer amendments.
Madam Speaker, the use of public money for educational vouchers that
can be used in private schools is a very dominant issue facing our
country today and facing public education, especially. It is very
controversial. Passions run deep on both sides. To consider a bill on
this subject with no hearings, no committee action, and no amendments
on the House floor shows disrespect for the democratic process and
contempt for Members who want to help shape this important legislation.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question and if
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to make in
order a substitute bill offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Clay], ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. Only by defeating the previous question will the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Clay] have the opportunity to amend this act.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the following:
Text of Previous Question Amendment to H. Res. 288 H.R. 2746
(H.E.L.P.)--H.R. 2616 (Charter Schools)
On page 2, line 13 of H. Res. 288 after ``except'' insert
the following:
`` 1) the amendment printed in sec. of this resolution
if offered by Representative Clay or his designee, which
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
or demand for division of the question, shall be considered
as read and shall be separately debatable for sixty minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent and 2)''
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``SEC. (SEE ACCOMPANYING TEXT OF CLAY SUBSTITUTE)''
Strike Section 3 and renumber Section 4.
____
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2746
Offered by Mr. Clay of Missouri
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART 1--PROGRAM AUTHORIZED FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) According to the General Accounting Office, one-third
of all elementary and secondary schools in the United States,
serving 14,000,000 students, need extensive repair or
renovation.
(2) 7,000,000 children attend schools with life safety code
problems.
(3) School infrastructure problems exist across the country
in urban and nonurban schools; at least 1 building is in need
of extensive repair or replacement in 38 percent of urban
schools, 30 percent of rural schools, and 29 percent of
suburban schools.
(4) Many States and school districts will need to build new
schools in order to accommodate increasing student
enrollments; the Department of Education has predicted that
the Nation will need 6,000 more schools by the year 2006.
(5) Many schools do not have the physical infrastructure to
take advantage of computers and other technology needed to
meet the challenges of the next century.
(6) While school construction and maintenance are primarily
a State and local concern, States and communities have not,
on their own, met the increasing burden of providing
acceptable school facilities for all students, and low-income
communities have had the greatest difficulty meting this
need.
(7) The Federal Government, by providing interest subsidies
and similar types of support, can lower the costs of State
and local school infrastructure investment, creating an
incentive for States and localities to increase their own
infrastructure improvement efforts and helping ensure that
all students are able to attend schools that are equipped for
the 21st century.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to provide
Federal interest subsidies, or similar assistance, to States
and localities to help them bring all public school
facilities up to an acceptable standard and build the
additional public schools needed to educate the additional
numbers of students who will enroll in the next decade.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
Except as otherwise provided, as used in this title, the
following terms have the following meanings:
(1) Community school.--The term ``community school'' means
a school facility, or part of a school facility, that serves
as a center for after-school and summer programs and delivery
of education, tutoring, cultural, and recreational services,
and as a safe haven for all members of the community by--
(A) collaborating with other public and private nonprofit
agencies (including libraries and other educational, human-
service, cultural, and recreational entities) and private
businesses in the provision of services;
[[Page H9818]]
(B) providing services such as literacy and reading
programs, senior citizen programs, children's day care
services; nutrition services, services for individuals with
disabilities, employment counseling, training, and placement,
and other educational, health, cultural, and recreational
services; and
(C) providing those services outside the normal school day
and school year, such as through safe and drug-free safe
havens for learning.
(2) Construction.--(A) The term ``construction'' means--
(i) the preparation of drawings and specifications for
school facilities;
(ii) erecting, building, acquiring, remodeling, renovating,
improving, repairing, or extending school facilities;
(iii) demolition in preparation for rebuilding school
facilities; and
(iv) the inspection and supervision of the construction of
school facilities.
(B) The term ``construction'' does not include the
acquisition of any interest in real property.
(3) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given that term in section 14101(18)
(A) and (B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801(18) (A) and (B)).
(4) School facility.--(A) The term ``school facility''
means--
(i) a public structure suitable for use as a classroom,
laboratory, library, media center, or related facility, whose
primary purpose is the instruction of public elementary or
secondary students; and
(ii) initial equipment, machinery, and utilities necessary
or appropriate for school purposes.
(B) The term ``school facility'' does not include an
athletic stadium, or any other structure or facility intended
primarily for athletic exhibitions, contests, games, or
events for which admission is charged to the general public.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(7) State educational agency.--The term ``State educational
agency'' has the meaning given that term in section 14101(28)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 8801(28)).
SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $5,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and such sums as
may be necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.
SEC. 104. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.
(a) Allocation of Funds.--Of the amounts appropriated to
carry out this title, the Secretary shall make available--
(1) 49 percent of such amounts for formula grants to States
under section 111;
(2) 34 percent of such amounts for direct formula grants to
local educational agencies under section 126;
(3) 15 percent of such amounts for competitive grants to
local educational agencies under section 127; and
(4) 2 percent of such amounts to provide assistance to the
Secretary of the Interior as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Reservation for the Secretary of the Interior and the
Outlying Areas.--
(1) Funds allocated under subsection (a)(4) to provide
assistance to the Secretary of the interior shall be used--
(A) for the school construction priorities described in
section 1125(c) of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25
U.S.C. 2005(c)); and
(B) to make grants to American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin
Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, in accordance with their respective needs, as
determined by the Secretary.
(2) Grants provided under subsection (b)(1)(B) shall be
used for activities that the Secretary determines best meet
the school infrastructure needs of the areas identified in
that paragraph, subject to the terms and conditions,
consistent with the purpose of this title, that the Secretary
may establish.
PART 2--GRANTS TO STATES
SEC. 111. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.
(a) Formula Grants to States.--Subject to subsection (b),
the Secretary shall allocate the funds available under
section 104(a)(1) among the States in proportion to the
relative amounts each State would have received for Basic
Grants under subpart 2 of part A of title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.)
for the most recent fiscal year if the Secretary had
disregarded the numbers of children counted under that
subpart who were enrolled in schools of local educational
agencies that are eligible to receive direct grants under
section 126 of this title.
(b) Adjustments to Allocations.--The Secretary shall adjust
the allocations under subsection (a), as necessary, to ensure
that, of the total amount allocated to States under
subsection (a) and to local educational agencies under
section 126, the percentage allocated to a State under this
section and to localities in the State under section 126 is
at least the minimum percentage for the State described in
section 1124(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6334(d)) for the previous fiscal year.
(c) Reallocations.--If a State does not apply for its
allocation, applies for less than its full allocation, or
fails to submit an approvable application, the Secretary may
reallocate all or a portion of the State's allocation, as the
case may be, to the remaining States in the same proportions
as the original allocations were made to those States under
subsections (a) and (b).
SEC. 112. STATE ADMINISTRATION.
The Secretary shall award each State's grant to the State
educational agency to administer the State grant, or to
another public agency in the State designated by the State
educational agency if the State educational agency determines
that the other agency is better able to administer the State
grant.
SEC. 113. ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS.
Each State shall use its grant under this part only for 1
or more of the following activities to subsidize the cost of
eligible school construction projects described in section
114:
(1) Providing a portion of the interest cost (or of another
financing cost approved by the Secretary) on bonds,
certificates of participation, purchase or lease
arrangements, or other forms of indebtedness issued or
entered into by a State or its instrumentality for the
purpose of financing eligible projects.
(2) State-level expenditures approved by the Secretary for
credit enhancement for the debt or financing instruments
described in paragraph (1).
(3) Making subgrants, or making loans through a State
revolving fund, to local educational agencies or (with the
agreement of the affected local educational agency) to other
qualified public agencies to subsidize--
(A) the interest cost (or another financing cost approved
by the Secretary) of bonds, certificates of participation,
purchase or lease arrangements, or other forms of
indebtedness issued or entered into by a local educational
agency or other agency or unit of local government for the
purpose of financing eligible projects; or
(B) local expenditures approved by the Secretary for credit
enhancement for the debt or financing instruments described
in subparagraph (A).
(4) Other State and local expenditures approved by the
Secretary that leverage funds for additional school
construction.
SEC. 114. ELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS; PERIOD FOR
INITIATION
(a) Eligible Projects.--States and their subgrantees may
use funds under this part, in accordance with section 113, to
subsidize the cost of--
(1) construction of elementary and secondary school
facilities in order to ensure the health and safety of all
students, which may include the removal of environmental
hazards, improvements in air quality, plumbing, lighting,
heating, and air conditioning, electrical systems, or basic
school infrastructure, and building improvements that
increase school safety;
(2) construction activities needed to meet the requirements
of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
794) or of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.);
(3) construction activities that increase the energy
efficiency of school facilities;
(4) construction that facilitates the use of modern
educational technologies;
(5) construction of new school facilities that are needed
to accommodate growth in school enrollments; or
(6) construction projects needed to facilitate the
establishment of community schools.
(b) Period for Initiation of Project.--(1) Each State shall
use its grant under this part only to subsidize construction
projects described in subsection (a) that the State or its
localities have chosen to initiate, through the vote of a
school board, passage of a bond issue, or similar public
decision, made between July 11, 1996 and September 30, 2001.
(2) If a State determines, after September 30, 2001, that
an eligible project for which it has obligated funds under
this part will not be carried out, the State may use those
funds (or any available portion of those funds) for other
eligible projects selected in accordance with this part.
(c) Reallocation.--If the Secretary determines, by a date
before September 30, 2001, selected by the Secretary, that a
State is not making satisfactory progress in carrying out its
plan for the use of the funds allocated to it under this
part, the Secretary may reallocate all or part of those
funds, including any interest earned by the State on those
funds, to 1 or more other States that are making satisfactory
progress.
SEC. 115. SELECTION OF LOCALITIES AND PROJECTS.
(a) Priorities.--In determining which localities and
activities to support with grant funds, each State shall give
the highest priority to localities with the greatest needs,
as demonstrated by inadequate educational facilities
(particularly facilities that pose a threat to the health and
safety of students), coupled with a low level of resources
available to meet school construction needs.
(b) Additional Criteria.--In addition to the priorities
required by subsection (a), each State shall consider each of
the following in determining the use of its grant funds under
this part:
(1) The age and condition of the school facilities in
different communities in the State.
(2) The energy efficiency and the effect on the environment
of projects proposed by communities, and the extent to which
these projects use cost-efficient architectural design.
(3) The commitment of communities to finance school
construction and renovation
[[Page H9819]]
projects with assistance from the State's grant, as
demonstrated by their incurring indebtedness or by similar
public or private commitments for the purposes described in
section 114(a).
(4) The ability of communities to repay bonds or other
forms of indebtedness supported with grant funds.
(5) The particular needs, if any, of rural communities in
the State for assistance under this title.
(c) Ineligibility for Part 2 Subgrants.--Local educational
agencies in the State that receive direct grants under
section 126 shall be ineligible for a subgrant under this
part.
SEC. 116. STATE APPLICATIONS.
(a) Application Required.--A State that wishes to receive a
grant under this part shall submit through its State
educational agency, or through an alternative agency
described in section 112, an application to the Secretary, in
the manner the Secretary may require, not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Development of Application.--The State educational
agency or alternative agency described in section 12, shall
develop the State's application under this part only after
broadly consulting with the State board of education, and
representatives of local school boards, school
administrators, and business community, parents, and teachers
in the State about the best means of carrying out this part.
(c) State Survey.--(1) Before submitting the State's
application, the State educational agency or alternative
agency described in section 112, with the involvement of
local school officials and experts in building construction
and management, shall survey the needs throughout the State
(including in localities receiving grants under part 3) for
construction and renovation of school facilities, including,
at a minimum--
(A) the overall condition of school facilities in the
State, including health and safety problems;
(B) the capacity of the schools in the State to house
projected enrollments; and
(C) the extent to which the schools in the State offer the
physical infrastructure needed to provide a high-quality
education to all students.
(2) A State need not conduct a new survey under paragraph
(1) if it has previously completed a survey that meets the
requirements of that paragraph and that the Secretary finds
is sufficiently recent for the purpose of carrying out this
part.
(d) Application Contents.--Each State application under
this part shall include--
(1) a summary of the results of the State's survey of its
school facility needs, as described in subsection (c);
(2) a description of how the State will implement its
program under this part;
(3) a description of how the State will allocate its grant
funds, including a description of how the State will
implement the priorities and criteria described in section
115;
(4)(A) a description of the mechanisms that will be used to
finance construction projects supported by grant funds; and
(B) a statement of how the State will determine the amount
of the Federal subsidy to be applied, in accordance with
section 117(a), to each local project that the State will
support;
(5) a description of how the State will ensure that the
requirements of this part are met by subgrantees under this
part;
(6) a description of the steps the State will take to
ensure that local educational agencies will adequately
maintain the facilities that are constructed or improved with
funds under this part;
(7) an assurance that the State will use its grant only to
supplement the funds that the State, and the localities
receiving subgrants, would spend on school construction and
renovation in the absence of a grant under this part, and not
to supplant those funds;
(8) an assurance that, during the 4-year period beginning
with the year the State receives its grant, the average
annual combined expenditures for school construction by the
State and the localities that benefit form the State's
program under this part (which, at the State's option, may
include private contributions) will be at least 125 percent
of the average of those annual combined expenditures for that
purpose during the 8 preceding years; and
(9) other information and assurances that the Secretary may
require.
(e) Waiver of Requirement To Increase Expenditures.--The
Secretary may waive or modify the requirement of subsection
(d)(8) for a particular State if the State demonstrates to
the Secretary's satisfaction that that requirement is unduly
burdensome because the State or its localities have incurred
particularly high level of school construction expenditures
during the previous 8 years.
SEC. 117. AMOUNT OF FEDERAL SUBSIDY.
(a) Projects Funded With Subgrants.--For each construction
project assisted by a State through a subgrant to a locality,
the State shall determine the amount of the Federal subsidy
under this part, taking into account the number or percentage
of children from low-income families residing in the
locality, subject to the following limits:
(1) If the locality will use the subgrant to help meet the
costs of repaying bonds issued for a school construction
project, the Federal subsidy shall be not more than one-half
of the total interest cost of those bonds, determined in
accordance with paragraph (4).
(2) If the bonds to be subsidized are general obligation
bonds issued to finance more than 1 type of activity
(including school construction), the Federal subsidy shall be
not more than one-half of the interest cost for that portion
of the bonds that will be used for school construction
purposes, determined in accordance with paragraph (4).
(3) If the locality elects to use its subgrant for an
allowable activity not described in paragraph (1) or (2),
such as for certificates of participation, purchase or lease
arrangements, reduction of the amount of principal to be
borrowed, or credit enhancements for individual construction
projects, the Federal subsidy shall be not more than one-half
of the interest cost, as determined by the State in
accordance with paragraph (4), that would have been incurred
if bonds had been used to finance the project.
(4) The interest cost referred to in paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) shall be--
(A) calculated on the basis of net present value; and
(B) determined in accordance with an amortization schedule
and any other criteria and conditions the Secretary considers
necessary, including provisions to ensure comparable
treatment of different financing mechanisms.
(b) State-Funded Projects.--for a construction project
under this part funded directly by the State through the use
of State-issued bonds or other financial instruments, the
Secretary shall determine the Federal subsidy in accordance
with subsection (a).
(c) Non-Federal Share.--A State, and localities in the
State, receiving subgrants under this part, may use any non-
Federal funds, including State, local, and private-sector
funds, for the financing costs that are not covered by the
Federal subsidy under subsection (a).
SEC. 118. SEPARATE FUNDS OR ACCOUNTS; PRUDENT INVESTMENT
(a) Separate Funds or Accounts Required.--Each State that
receives a grant, and each recipient of a subgrant under this
part, shall deposit the grant or subgrant proceeds in a
separate fund or account, from which it shall make bond
repayments and pay other expenses allowable under this part.
(b) Prudent Investment Required.--Each State that receives
a grant, and each recipient of a subgrant under this part,
shall--
(1) invest the grant or subgrant in a fiscally prudent
manner, in order to generate amounts needed to make
repayments on bonds and other forms of indebtedness described
in section 113; and
(2) notwithstanding section 6503 of title 31, United States
Code, or any other law, use the proceeds of that investment
to carry out this part.
SEC. 119. STATE REPORTS.
(a) Reports Required.--Each State receiving a grant under
this part shall report to the Secretary on its activities
under this part, in the form and manner the Secretary may
prescribe.
(b) Contents.--Each report shall--
(1) describe the State's implementation of this part,
including how the State has met the requirements of this
part;
(2) identify the specific school facilities constructed,
renovated, or modernized with support from the grant, and the
mechanisms used to finance those activities;
(3) identify the level of Federal subsidy provided to each
construction project carried out with support from the
State's grant; and
(4) include any other information the Secretary may
require.
(c) Frequency.--(1) Each State shall submit its first
report under this section not later than 24 months after it
receives its grants under this part.
(2) Each State shall submit an annual report for each of
the 3 years after submitting its first report, and
subsequently shall submit periodic reports as long as the
State or localities in the State are using grant funds.
PART 3--DIRECT GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES
SEC. 121. ELIGIBLE LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES
(a) Eligible Agencies.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), the local educational agencies that are eligible to
receive formula grants under section 126 are the 100 local
educational agencies with the largest numbers of children
aged 5 through 17 from families living below the poverty
level, as determined by the Secretary using the most recent
data available from the Department of Commerce that are
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(b) Certain Jurisdictions Ineligible.--For the purpose of
this part, the local educational agencies for Hawaii and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are not eligible local
educational agencies.
SEC. 122. GRANTEES.
For each local educational agency for which an approvable
application is submitted, the Secretary shall make any grant
under this part to the local educational agency or to another
public agency, on behalf of the local educational agency, if
the Secretary determines, on the basis of the local
educational agency's recommendation, that the other agency is
better able to carry out activities under this part.
SEC. 123. ALLOWABLE USES OF FUNDS.
Each grantee under this part shall use its grant only for 1
or more of the following activities to reduce the cost of
financing eligible school construction projects described in
section 124:
(1) Providing a portion of the interest cost (or of any
other financing cost approved by
[[Page H9820]]
the Secretary) on bonds, certificates of participation,
purchase or lease arrangements, or other forms of
indebtedness issued or entered into by a local educational
agency or other unit or agency of local government for the
purpose of financing eligible school construction projects.
(2) Local expenditures approved by the Secretary for credit
enhancement for the debt or financing instruments described
in paragraph (1).
(3) Other local expenditures approved by the Secretary that
leverage funds for additional school construction.
SEC. 124. ELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS; REDISTRIBUTION
(a) Eligible Projects.--A grantee under this part may use
its grant, in accordance with section 123, to subsidize the
cost of the activities described in section 114(a) for
projects that the local educational agency has chosen to
initiate, through the vote of the school board, passage of a
bond issue, or similar public decision, made between July 11,
1996 and September 30, 2001.
(b) Redistribution.--If the Secretary determines, by a date
before September 30, 2001 selected by the Secretary, that a
local educational agency is not making satisfactory progress
in carrying out its plan for the use of funds awarded to it
under this part, the Secretary may redistribute all or part
of those funds, and any interest earned by that agency on
those funds, to 1 or more other local educational agencies
that are making satisfactory progress.
SEC. 125. LOCAL APPLICATIONS.
(a) Application Required.--A local educational agency, or
an alternative agency described in section 122 (both referred
to in this part as the ``local agency''), that wishes to
receive a grant under this part shall submit an application
to the Secretary, in the manner the Secretary may require,
not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(b) Development of Application.--(1) The local agency shall
develop the local application under this part only after
broadly consulting with the State educational agency,
parents, administrators, teachers, the business community,
and other members of the local community about the best means
of carrying out this part.
(2) If the local educational agency is not the applicant,
the applicant shall consult with the local educational
agency, and shall obtain its approval before submitting its
application to the Secretary.
(c) Local Survey.--(1) Before submitting its application,
the local agency, with the involvement of local school
officials and experts in building construction and
management, shall survey the local need for construction and
renovation of school facilities, including, at a minimum--
(A) the overall condition of school facilities in the local
educational agency, including health and safety problems;
(B) the capacity of the local educational agency's schools
to house projected enrollments; and
(C) the extent to which the local educational agency's
schools offer the physical infrastructure needed to provide a
high-quality education to all students.
(2) A local educational agency need not conduct a new
survey under paragraph (1) if it has previously completed a
survey that meets the requirements of that paragraph and that
the Secretary finds is sufficiently recent for the purpose of
carrying out this part.
(d) Applicable Contents.--Each local application under this
part shall include--
(1) an identification of the local agency to receive the
grant under this part;
(2) a summary of the results of the survey of school
facility needs, as described in subsection (c);
(3) a description of how the local agency will implement
its program under this part;
(4) a description of the criteria the local agency has used
to determine which construction projects to support with
grant funds;
(5) a description of the construction projects that will be
supported with grant funds;
(6) a description of the mechanisms that will be used to
finance construction projects supported by grant funds;
(7) a requested level of Federal subsidy, with a
justification for that level, for each construction project
to be supported by the grant, in accordance with section
128(a), including the financial and demographic information
the Secretary may require;
(8) a description of the steps the agency will take to
ensure that facilities constructed or improved with funds
under this part will be adequately maintained;
(9) an assurance that the agency will use its grant only to
supplement the funds that the locality would spend on school
construction and renovation in the absence of a grant under
this part, and not to supplant those funds;
(10) an assurance that, during the 4-year period beginning
with the year the local educational agency receives its
grant, its average annual expenditures for school
construction (which, at that agency's option, may include
private contributions) will be a least 125 percent of its
average annual expenditures for that purpose during the 8
preceding years; and
(11) other information and assurances that the Secretary
may require.
(e) Waiver of Requirement To Increase Expenditures.--The
Secretary may waive or modify the requirement of subsection
(d)(10) for a local educational agency that demonstrates to
the Secretary's satisfaction that that requirement is unduly
burdensome because that agency has incurred a particularly
high level of school construction expenditures during the
previous 8 years.
SEC. 126. DIRECT FORMULA GRANTS.
(a) Allocations.--The Secretary shall allocate the funds
available under section 104(a)(2) to the local educational
agencies identified under section 121(a) on the basis of
their relative allocations under section 1124 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6333) in the most recent year for which that information is
available to the Secretary.
(b) Reallocations.--If a local educational agency does not
apply for its allocation, applies for less than its full
allocation, or fails to submit an approvable application, the
Secretary may reallocate all or a portion of its allocation,
as the case may be, to the remaining local educational
agencies in the same proportions as the original allocations
were made to those agencies under subsection (a).
SEC. 127. DIRECT COMPETITIVE GRANTS.
(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary shall use funds
available under section 104(a)(3) to make additional grants,
on a competitive basis to local educational agencies, or
alternative agencies described in section 122.
(b) Additional Application Materials.--Any local
educational agency, or an alternative agency described in
section 122, that wishes to receive funds under this section
shall submit an application to the Secretary that meets the
requirements under section 125 and includes the following
additional information:
(1) The amount of funds requested under this section, in
accordance with ranges or limits that the Secretary may
establish based on factors such as relative size of the
eligible applicants.
(2) A description of the additional construction activities
that the applicant would carry out with those funds.
(3) A description of the extent to which the proposed
construction activities would enhance the health and safety
of students.
(4) A description of the extent to which the proposed
construction activities address compliance with Federal
mandates, including providing accessibility for the disabled
and removal of hazardous materials.
(5) Information on the current financial effort the
applicant is making for elementary and secondary education,
including support from private sources, relative to its
resources.
(6) Information on the extent to which the applicant will
increase its own (or other public or private) spending for
school construction in the year in which it receives a grant
under this section, above the average annual amount for
construction activity during the preceding 8 years.
(7) A description of the energy efficiency and the effect
on the environment of the projects that the applicant will
undertake and of the extent to which those projects will use
cost-efficient architectural design.
(8) Other information that the Secretary may require.
(c) Selection of Grantees.--In determining which local
educational agencies shall receive direct grants under this
part, the Secretary shall give the highest priority to local
educational agencies that--
(1) have a need to repair, remodel, renovate, or otherwise
improve school facilities posing a threat to the health and
physical safety of students, coupled with a low level of
resources available to meet school construction needs, and
have demonstrated a high level of financial effort for
elementary and secondary education relative to their local
resources;
(2) have a need to repair, remodel, renovate, or construct
school facilities in order to comply with Federal mandates,
including providing for accessibility for the disabled and
removal of hazardous materials, coupled with a low level of
resources available to meet school construction needs, and
have demonstrated a high level of financial effort for
elementary and secondary education relative to their local
resources; and
(3) demonstrate a need for emergency assistance for to
repair, remodel, renovate, or construct school facilities,
coupled with a low level of resources available to meet
school construction needs, and have demonstrated a high level
of financial effort for elementary and secondary education
relative to their local resources.
(d) Minimum Allocations.--Of the amount available for
competitive awards under section 104(a)(3), the Secretary
shall ensure that, in making awards under subsection (a), no
less than 40 percent of such amount is available to the local
educational agencies described in section 121(a) and no less
than 40 percent of such amount is available to the local
educational agencies eligible for subgrants under part 2.
(e) Additional Criteria.--The Secretary may establish
additional criteria, consistent with subsections (c) and (d),
and with purposes of this title, for the purpose of electing
grantees under this part.
SEC. 128. AMOUNT OF FEDERAL SUBSIDY.
(a) Amount of Federal Subsidy.--For each construction
project assisted under this part, the Secretary shall
determine the amount of the Federal subsidy in accordance
with section 117(a).
[[Page H9821]]
(b) Non-Federal Share.--A grantee under this part may use
any non-Federal funds, including State, local, and private-
sector funds, for the financing costs that are not covered by
the Federal subsidy under subsection (a).
SEC. 129. SEPARATE FUNDS OR ACCOUNTS; PRUDENT INVESTMENT
(a) Separate Funds or Accounts Required.--Each grantee
under this part shall deposit the grant proceeds in a
separate fund or account, from which it shall make bond
repayments and pay other expenses allowable under this part.
(b) Prudent Investment Required.--Each grantee under this
part shall--
(1) invest the grant funds in a fiscally prudent manner, in
order to generate amounts needed to make repayments on bonds
and other forms of indebtedness; and
(2) notwithstanding section 6503 of title 31, United States
Code, or any other law, use the proceeds of that investment
to carry out this part.
SEC. 130. LOCAL REPORTS.
(a) Reports Required.--(1) Each grantee under this part
shall report to the Secretary on its activities under this
part, in the form and manner the Secretary may prescribe.
(2) If the local educational agency is not the grantee
under this part, the grantee's report shall include the
approval of the local educational agency or its comments on
the report.
(b) Contents.--Each report shall--
(1) describe the grantee's implementation of this part,
including how it has met the requirements of this part;
(2) identify the specific school facilities constructed,
renovated, or modernized with support from the grant, and the
mechanisms used to finance those activities; and
(3) other information the Secretary may require.
(c) Frequency.--(1) Each grantee shall submit its first
report under this section not later than 24 months after it
receives it grant under this part.
(2) Each grantee shall submit an annual report for each of
the 3 years after submitting its first report, and
subsequently shall submit periodic reports as long as it is
using grant funds.
TITLE II--LOCAL COMMUNITIES RENEWAL OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Assistance to Local
Communities in Renewal of Public Schools Act''.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Although the majority of our Nation's elementary and
secondary public schools provide high quality education for
our children, many schools need additional resources to
implement immediate assistance and reform to enable them to
provide a basic and safe education for their students.
(2) The Government Accounting Office recently found that
\1/3\ of all elementary and secondary schools in the United
States, serving 14,000,000 students, need extensive repair
and renovation.
(3) Recent reform of under-achieving schools in a number of
States and school districts demonstrates that parents,
teachers, school administrators, other educators, and local
officials, given adequate resources and expertise, can
succeed in dramatically improving public education and
creating high performance schools.
(4) Such reform efforts show that parental and community
involvement in those reforms is indispensable to the
objective of high quality, safe, and accountable schools.
(5) Despite the successes of such reforms, public schools
are facing tremendous challenges in educating children for
the 21st century. The elementary and secondary school
population will grow by 10 percent by the year 2005, and over
the next 10 years, schools will need more than 2,000,000
additional teachers to meet the demands of such expected
enrollments.
(6) Almost 7 of 10 Americans support increased Federal
assistance to our Nation's public schools, and that support
crosses all boundaries, including cities, towns, and rural
areas.
(7) When Federal investment in public schools and children
has increased, test scores have improved, and high school
graduation rates and college enrollments have increased.
(8) The Federal Government should encourage communities
that demonstrate a strong commitment to restore and reform
their public schools.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title to assist
local communities that are taking the initiative--
(1) to overcome adverse conditions in their public schools;
(2) to revitalize their public schools in accordance with
local plans to achieve higher academic standards and safer
and improved learning environments; and
(3) to ensure that every community public school provides a
quality education for all students.
SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title:
(1) Consortium.--The term ``consortium'' means a local
schools consortium as defined in paragraph (2).
(2) Local schools consortium.--The term ``local schools
consortium'' means the local educational agency in
collaboration with a group composed of affected parents,
students, and representatives of teachers, school employees
and administrators, local business and community leaders and
representative of local higher education group working or
residing within the boundary of a local educational agency.
(3) Parent.--The term ``parent'' includes any of the
following:
(A) A grandparent.
(B) A legal guardian.
(C) Any other person standing in loco parentis.
(3) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means a 3-year public schools
renewal and improvement plan described in section 504.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the American Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
SEC. 204. PROCEDURE FOR DECLARATION.
(a) In General.--A request for a declaration by the
President that a ``public schools renewal effort is
underway'' shall be made by a local schools consortium.
(b) Request.--The local education agency shall submit the
request to the Governor of the State who shall, with or
without comment, forward such request to the President not
more than 30 days after the Governor's receipt of such
request. Such request shall--
(1) include the plan;
(2) describe the nature and amount of State and local
resources which have been or will be committed to the renewal
and improvement of the public schools; and
(3) certify that State or local government obligations and
expenditures will comply with all applicable matching
requirements established pursuant to this title.
(c) Declaration.--Based on a request made under this title,
the President, in consultation with the Secretary, may
declare that a ``public schools renewal effort is underway''
in such community and authorize the Department of Education
and other Federal agencies to provide assistance under this
title.
(d) Progress Reports.--The consortium shall--
(1) amend such request annually to include additional
initiatives and approaches undertaken by the local
educational agency to improve the academic effectiveness and
safety of its public school system.
(2) submit annual performance reports to the Secretary
which shall describe progress in achieving the goals of the
plan.
SEC. 205. ELEMENTS OF RENEWAL AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
(a) In General.--As part of its request to the President,
and in order to receive assistance under this section, a
consortium shall submit a plan that includes the elements
described in subsections (b) and (c).
(b) Adverse Conditions.--The plan shall specify the
existence of any of the following factors:
(1)(A) A substantial percentage of students in the affected
public schools have been performing well below the national
average, or below other benchmarks, including State developed
benchmarks in such basic skills as reading, math, and
science, consistent with Goals 2000 and title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; or
(B) a substantial percentage of such students are failing
to complete high school.
(2) Some or all of such schools are overcrowded or have
physical plant conditions that threaten the health, safety,
and learning environment of the schools' populations.
(3) There is a substantial shortage of certified teachers,
teaching materials, and technology training.
(4) Some or all of the schools are located where crime and
safety problems interfere with the schools' ability to
educate students to high academic standards.
(c) Assurances.--The plan shall also include assurances
from the local educational agency that--
(1) the plan was developed by the local schools consortium
after extensive public discussion with State education
officials, affected parents, students, teachers and
representatives of teachers and school employees,
administrators, higher education officials, other educators,
and business and community leaders;
(2) describe how the consortium will use resources to meet
the types of reforms described in section 7;
(3) provide effective opportunities for professional
development of public school teachers, school staff,
principals, and school administrators;
(4) provide for greater parental involvement in school
affairs;
(5) focus substantially on successful and continuous
improvement in the basic academic performance of the students
in the public schools;
(6) address the unique responsibilities of all stake
holders in the public school system, including students,
parents, teachers, school administrators, other educators,
governmental officials, and business and community leaders,
for the effectiveness of the public school system especially
with respect to the schools targeted for greatest assistance;
(7) provide for regular objective evaluation of the
effectiveness of the plan;
(8) the agency will give priority to public schools that
need the most assistance in improving overcrowding, physical
problems and other health and safety concerns, readiness for
telecommunications equipment, and teacher training and the
pool of certified teachers;
[[Page H9822]]
(9) ensure that funds received under this title shall be
used to supplement, not supplant other non-Federal funds;
(10) certify that the combined fiscal effort per student or
the aggregate expenditures within the State with respect to
the provision of free public education for the fiscal year
preceding the fiscal year for which the request for a
declaration is made was not less than 90 percent of such
combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the
second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the
request for a declaration is made; and
(11) will address other major issues which the local
schools consortium determines are critical to renewal of its
public schools.
SEC. 206. ALLOWABLE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--To provide assistance under this title,
the President may--
(1) direct the Department of Education, with or without
reimbursement, to use the authority and the resources granted
to it under Federal law (including personnel, educational
equipment and supplies, facilities, and managerial,
technical, and advisory services) in support of State and
local assistance efforts;
(2) direct any other Federal agency to provide assistance
as described in paragraph (1);
(3) coordinate such assistance provided by Federal
agencies; and
(4) provide technical assistance and advisory assistance to
the affected local educational agency.
(b) Distribution of Assistance Funds.--
(1) In general.--At the direction of the President, the
Secretary shall distribute funds and resources provided
pursuant to a declaration under this title to local
educational agencies selected for assistance under this
title.
(2) Existing procedures.--The Secretary shall determine the
best method of distributing funds under this Act through
personnel and existing procedures that are used to distribute
funds under other elementary and secondary education
programs.
(c) Prohibition.--No provision of this title shall be
construed to authorize any action or conduct prohibited under
the General Education Provisions Act.
SEC. 207. USE OF ASSISTANCE.
Assistance provided pursuant to this title may be used only
to carry out a plan, and to effectuate the following and
similar types of public school reforms:
(1) Student-targeted resources.--
(A) Increasing and improving high-quality early childhood
educational opportunities.
(B) Providing comprehensive parent training so that parents
better prepare children before they reach school age.
(C) Establishing intensive truancy prevention and dropout
prevention programs.
(D) Establishing alternative public schools and programs
for troubled students and dropouts, and establishing other
public school learning ``safety nets''.
(E) Enhancing assistance for students with special needs
(including limited English proficient students, English as a
second language, and students with disabilities).
(2) Classroom focused school development.--
(A) Establishing teacher and principal academies to assist
in training and professional development.
(B) Establishing effective training links for students with
area colleges and universities.
(C) Establishing career ladders for teachers and school
employees.
(D) Establishing teacher mentor programs.
(E) Establishing recruitment programs at area colleges and
universities to recruit and train college students for the
teaching profession.
(F) Establishing stronger links between schools and law
enforcement and juvenile justice authority.
(G) Establishing stronger links between schools and parents
concerning safe classrooms and effective classroom activities
and learning.
(H) Establishing parent and community patrols in and around
schools to assist safe schools and passage to schools.
(I) Implementing research-based promising educational
practices and promoting exemplary school recognition
programs.
(J) Expanding the time students spend on school-based
learning activities and in extracurricular activities.
(3) Accountability reforms.--
(A) Establishing high learning standards and meaningful
assessments of whether standards are being met.
(B) Monitoring school progress and determining how to more
effectively use school system resources.
(C) Establishing performance criteria for teachers and
principals through such entities as joint school board and
union staff improvement committees.
(D) Establishing promotion and graduation requirements for
students, including requirements for reading, mathematics,
and science performance.
(E) Providing for strong accountability and corrective
action from a continuum of options, consistent with State law
and title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.
SEC. 208. DURATION OF ASSISTANCE.
Assistance under this title may be provided for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
SEC. 209. REPORT.
Not later than March 31, 2000, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources of the Senate assessing the effectiveness of this
title in assisting recipient local schools consortia in
carrying out their plans submitted under this title.
SEC. 210. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; MATCHING
REQUIREMENT.
(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this title--
(1) for fiscal year 1998, $250,000,000; and
(2) for fiscal year 1999, $500,000,000; and
(3) for fiscal year 2000, such sums as may be necessary.
(b) Matching Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Federal funds expended or obligated under
this title shall be matched (in an amount equal to such
amount so expended or obligated) from State or local funds.
(2) Other federal resources.--The Secretary shall, by
regulation and in consultation with the heads of other
Federal agencies, establish matching requirements for other
Federal resources provided under this title.
(3) Waiver.--Based upon the recommendation of the
Secretary, the President may waive paragraph (1) or (2).
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES.
For purposes of carrying out this title, the Secretary,
without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, may
appoint not more than 10 technical employees who may be paid
without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
IV of chapter 5 of that title relating to classification and
General Schedule pay rates.
SEC. 302. WAGE RATES
(a) Prevailing Wage.--The Secretary shall ensure that all
laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and
subcontractors on any project assisted under this title are
paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing as
determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the
Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.).
The Secretary of Labor has, with respect to this section, the
authority and functions established in Reorganization Plan
Numbered 14 of 1950 (effective May 24, 1950, 64 Stat. 1267)
and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 276c).
(b) Waiver for Volunteers.--Section 7305 of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (40 U.S.C. 276d-3) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking out the ``and'' at the
end thereof;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking out the period at the end
thereof and inserting a semicolon and ``and''; and
(3) by adding at the end thereof the following new
paragraph:
``(7) title V of the Reading Excellence Act,''.
SEC. 303. NO LIABILITY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
(a) No Federal Liability.--Any financial instruments,
including but not limited to contracts, bonds, bills, notes,
certificates of participation, or purchase or lease
arrangements, issued by States, localities, or
instrumentalities thereof in connection with any assistance
provided by the Secretary under this title are obligations of
such States, localities or instrumentalities and not
obligations of the United States and are not guaranteed by
the full faith and credit of the United States.
(b) Notice Requirement.--Documents relating to any
financial instruments, including but not limited to
contracts, bonds, bills, notes, offering statements,
certificates of participation, or purchase or lease
arrangements, issued by States, localities or
instrumentalities thereof in connection with any assistance
provided under this title, shall include a prominent
statement providing notice that the financial instruments are
not obligations of the United States and are not guaranteed
by the full faith and credit of the United States.
SEC. 304. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
The Secretary shall report on the activities conducted by
States and local educational agencies with assistance
provided under this title, and shall assess State and local
educational agency compliance with the requirements of this
title. Such report shall be submitted to Congress not later
than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act and
annually thereafter as long as States or local educational
agencies are using grant funds.
SEC. 305. CONSULTATION WITH SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the
Treasury in carrying out this title.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
North Carolina for yielding me the time. I rise in support of the rule
for H.R. 2746, the HELP Scholarships Act. I commend my good friend and
colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, for her support and
leadership on this important legislation. The gentlewoman's reputation
as a friend of education is well earned and her support for this
measure is very significant.
[[Page H9823]]
Every single Member of this Congress shares one common goal with
regard to education, that is that we do what is right for all of
America's children with regard to their most fundamental right as
Americans, their right to a solid education. I just urge my colleagues
to allow this rule to pass and urge their support for this rule so that
we can debate this very important issue. I look very forward to that
debate.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], ranking minority member on the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hall] for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very strange and
very confusing rule. For rule watchers, we have got a doozy here today.
To begin with, this rule provides for the consideration of two
separate bills, one under a closed rule and one under an open rule. The
first bill, the HELP school vouchers bill, has not been considered by
any committee, no hearings. It has not been reported out of any
committee, Madam Speaker. In fact, it was only introduced 3 days ago
and the ink is still wet on it. But if any of my colleagues are
thinking about offering any amendment to this steel-clad bill, forget
it. The Republican leadership has wrapped this bill up in a completely
closed rule, which all of my colleagues know, means they have
prohibited any and all amendments.
The other bill to be considered under this rule is the Charter
Schools Act. This bill is a bipartisan effort that is supported by many
Members on both sides of the aisle. The good news is that this bill
will be considered under an open rule. The bad news is that because of
the confusing way this ill-fated rule is structured, it may never see
the light of day.
Even if it passes by an overwhelming margin, the charter school bill
may very well be heading for a veto threat down the road.
So here is the reason why if this strange rule passes, which I hope
it will not, the two bills, even though considered and voted upon
separately, will be joined together and sent to the Senate for
consideration as a single bill.
The final joining of the good bipartisan bill and one dangerous
controversial bill, Madam Speaker, is the death knell for charter
schools.
By way of this rule, the Republican leadership is effectively singing
a very well thought out, bipartisan bill on charter schools by
attaching a spur-of-the-moment idea, which will hurt public education
and one that the President has promised to veto. Furthermore, even
though the President supports the charter schools legislation, it will
be vetoed if the HELP voucher bill is attached.
So in the Committee on Rules, I tried to make some sense of this
strange legislative cartwheel. I thought that perhaps there was a
substantive reason for doing it this way. So during consideration of
the measure in the Committee on Rules on Wednesday, I asked my good
friend, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Goodling], why was it necessary to join these two bills. Why could
we not have taken them out individually?
Madam Speaker, after a pause, he replied, I do not know that I have
an answer to that question, I will be perfectly frank with you.
So, Madam Speaker, if it is a mystery to the chairman of the
committee who has been chairman for 3 years and a member of the
committee for 23 years, if anybody is an expert on education in this
House, my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], is,
that means only one thing: Somebody in a higher pay grade than the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] made that decision.
Once again, Madam Speaker, the Republican leadership is putting
politics before substance and this time it is the American education
system that will pay the price.
Madam Speaker, although I believe improving American education should
be our first priority, I am very confused about the way my Republican
colleagues are going about it. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule,
oppose the previous question.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Clay], ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I am appalled at the arrogant and
dictatorial way that this bill has been brought to the floor. I urge my
colleagues to defeat the previous question and defeat this rule.
The majority party has run roughshod over the entire democratic
process. A previous Republican speaker this morning said that this is
not a vote on vouchers, but it is a vote to permit debate on the issue
of vouchers.
{time} 1030
How misleading. This rule continues that farce. This bill has never
had a public hearing in either the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Youth and Families or on the full Committee on Education and the
Workforce. This bill has never been marked up by the committee. There
was no debate, no discussion, no public involvement, no give-and-take.
Clearly, Madam Speaker, the doors of democracy have been slammed shut.
And to further stifle legitimate debate on the school voucher issue,
the majority proposes, through this rule, to deny all Members of
Congress the right to address this bill through a fair amendment
process. If ever an issue needed the benefit of public discussion, of
debate and of sunshine, it is this voucher issue.
As we look at the many debates surrounding strategies to improve
elementary and secondary education, no issue is more contentious, no
issue arouses more passion, and no issue divides us more than these
proposals to take funds from public schools and give them to private
schools in the form of vouchers. It would be a travesty if this rule
passes. The Republican Party should be ashamed for playing politics
with America's schoolchildren through the manipulation and abuse of
House rules.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we
can substitute consideration of this reprehensible voucher bill with
legislation that addresses issues that the Republican majority does not
care to consider; namely, legislation that will help improve the public
schools, where 50 million children go each day to receive an education.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of the Members to vote no on this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Flake].
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I do rise today in support of this rule, in
large measure because of my concern about, first, the preservation of
public education, but more importantly, trying to get the kind of
product out of public education that I think the forefathers and those
of us who have participated over the years in this whole problem of
trying to ensure that every child in America has access to the best
possible education.
The 1954 Brown versus Board of Education was a battle about separate
but equal schools by definition of those who tried to maintain
segregation. In 1997, we realize that schools are separate but unequal.
In almost every single statistical base of data that has been put
forth, there is a realization that children in the lower tier, and,
indeed, public education has two tiers, on the upper tier, people are
educated properly, they are given the tools necessary to compete in
society, to be able to function in a world that globally is so
competitive, if they do not have the tools they cannot survive; and on
the lower tier, which is reflective of most of our urban communities of
which I serve one of and also serve as a pastor and minister. When I
discover there are so many of our young people who have not been given
a fair opportunity for competition, it becomes clear to me that we must
look at some alternatives that challenges the public system to be able
to do the job that it is intended to do.
This is not a question for me about Democrats or Republicans. It is
really a question about whether or not we are going to continue to let
every child die, arguing that, if we begin to do vouchers, if we do
charter schools, what we in fact are doing is taking away from the
public system. We say, let them all stay there. Let them all die. It is
like saying there has been a plane crash.
[[Page H9824]]
But because we cannot save every child, we are not going to save any
of our children; we will let them all die, we will not even try to
create some means by which we can rescue those that can be rescued, we
will assume it will be better for all of them to die than for us to
take some of them out.
So my argument is simply this: Let us do what we can, as a people, to
ensure in 1997 that which the Supreme Court intended in 1954; and that
is to create a system that is not separate and unequal but a system
that understands that if we have an integrated community, an integrated
society, if it is going to be an integrated society, every child ought
to be able to get the best education possible.
I intend next week, after I have retired, to spend my time trying to
convince more people to deal with the question of what is not
happening, the failure of too many of our children in public education,
not again to get rid of it, but to make it better. This is a free
market society in which we live. If, indeed, that is correct, let us
create some competition, and I believe we will have a better product
coming out of the public system.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Martinez].
(Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Speaker, once again, the Republican leadership,
with the backing of the extreme religious right, have sought to gag
open and free debate through this politically motivated rule.
Today, the Republican leadership is asking Republican Members to
support a rule which not only closes off debate on one of the most
controversial issues before us today, that issue on voucher education.
The issue of private school vouchers is one that has been debated for a
long time. But never has a rule like this brought this issue to the
floor.
The worst part of it, this rule marries this discriminatory and ill-
conceived voucher proposal with the charter school bill, one that is
bipartisan. Even though I have concerns about the charter school
legislation, I do not appreciate the Republican leadership using that
bipartisan bill as a political hockey puck by issuing a rule to marry
it with the voucher bill after separate votes on each measure.
Members should know that H.R. 2746, the HELP, or should I say Hurt,
Scholarship Act was never marked up in committee, did never receive a
hearing. This legislation was created in a political vacuum that leaves
us no room for dissenting views or open debate.
Now before us, as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has said,
we have a discharge petition without benefit of 218 signatures. I guess
if we operate as a dictatorship, we will do that.
Madam Speaker, we have before us a rule that continues a ridiculous
closed path through the barring of amendments. Members of the House
will never get a chance to debate this legislation in a truly open
manner, especially since proponents of vouchers are doing the bidding
of those conservative forces, such as the Christian Coalition, in
rushing this legislation through the process.
I ask the Members to think objectively about the issue and join with
myself and my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] in
defeating the previous question. If we do defeat the previous question,
we will offer two initiatives, which truly will reinforce our public
education system, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] said,
making sure that every child in the United States gets a quality
education, one that will enable the Federal Government to provide
Federal assistance to local schools to develop local-inspired plans to
renew their communities' public schools, and the other would provide
much needed finance assistance to repair the large number of crumbling
schools throughout our Nation.
These proposals truly respond to the needs of our education system,
unlike the voucher proposal, which the majority would have us consider.
I urge all Members to vote against this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
[Mrs. Myrick], who is handling the rule, for yielding me the time, and
the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. Emerson], presiding as acting
speaker.
I say good morning to my colleagues and to let them know that as the
chairman of Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families,
otherwise known as the Subcommittee on Education, I stand before my
colleagues today as the lead author of both measures that will be
considered under this rule. Although, I hasten to add how satisfying
and gratifying it was to work with my good friend, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] in truly a collaborative bipartisan effort on the
charter school bill.
I also want to say at the outset of my remarks that it is unfortunate
and I regard it as beneath the gentleman from California [Mr.
Martinez], who I respect professionally and regard as a personal
friend, to attack the so-called religious right or Christian Coalition.
I think that is a rather specious argument to interject into this
debate.
I will just get this off my chest, as well, at the outset just so
everybody knows, particularly Americans listening to this debate today,
when we talk about bipartisanship, please understand that, like welfare
reform, what we are talking about is perhaps half House Democrats
supporting the idea of expanded parental choice in public education for
these new breed of public schools, these independent charter schools.
Maybe half will vote with us. About half voted with us in committee.
Whereas, almost all House Republicans will support the charter school
bill, and almost all House Republicans will support the HELP
scholarship bill, otherwise called vouchers for low-income families.
Let me explain the linkage here under the rule. Several months ago,
before we began deliberation of these two bills, we gave considerable
thought and discussion to the idea of offering a low-income parental
choice demonstration amendment on the charter school bill. But as that
bill evolved into, as I said earlier, a bipartisan effort, thanks in
large part to the efforts of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer],
out of respect for his efforts and out of deference to the process, the
bipartisan process, that had evolved, we decided that we would not
offer the low-income parental choice demonstration bill as an
amendment. However, we still want to make that linkage on the House
floor. And that is why we are going to do that under a single rule
making in order both proposals.
I am not the only one making that linkage. Let me quote to my
colleagues from a December 17 article in The Washington Post headlined
``Scholarships for Inner-City School Kids,'' and coauthored by Diane
Ravitch and William Galston. William Galston happens to be the former
domestic policy advisor to President Clinton. Diane Ravitch is a former
assistant secretary of education in the Bush administration. And they
wrote, ``A number of jurisdictions have experimented with new
contracting and management arrangements. Twenty-five States,'' now
actually 29 States plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
``have passed the charter school laws, which allow new or existing
public schools to function as independent units free of most
regulation.'' And we are trying to expand on those efforts on the floor
here today. ``With President Clinton's strong leadership, Federal
support,'' Federal taxpayer support, ``for charter school start-ups has
risen substantially during the last 4 years.'' And again, we intend to
redouble those efforts and build upon the Federal taxpayer assistance
that has already been expended for charter schools in States and
communities across the country.
But Ms. Ravitch and Mr. Galston go on to write, ``But while all of
these efforts are moving in the right direction, we have concluded that
for the poorest children, those most at risk of failure,'' and let us
be clear where most of those children are, they are in our urban
communities, they are too often trapped in failing inner-city school
districts, where they have to attend unsafe or underperforming schools,
``for those children most at risk, even stronger measures have to be
tried. State legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio have enacted laws to
permit poor children in Milwaukee and Cleveland to receive means-tested
scholarships for nonpublic schools.''
And that is what we are trying to do. With the HELP scholarship
proposal
[[Page H9825]]
here today on the floor, we are trying to expand on the programs in
Milwaukee and Cleveland. I will have more to say about those programs
later.
But I want to add now that those programs have shown a direct
correlation to increased parental involvement, increased parental
satisfaction, and what should be the bottom line for all of us, if we
are going to approach these issues on a nonpartisan basis or, as the
President has said, if we are going to leave partisan politics at the
schoolhouse door, what should be the bottom line is that those
programs, experimental in nature, have led to a substantial increase in
pupil performance. That is the bottom line here.
So Galston and Ravitch were making a linkage. And the bottom line
here, as far as I am concerned, the American people want more choice.
They have spoken, colleagues. When asked if parents should be allowed
more control to choose where their children are educated, two-thirds of
the American people say yes. That is why we are on the floor with these
two bills today.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule,
in strong opposition to vouchers, and in very, very strong support of
our bipartisan legislation on public charter schools.
Madam Speaker, I think it is appropriate on Halloween that we talk
about a ghoulish, strange, scary rule that has brought this particular
set of circumstances to the House floor, where we will vote on a very,
very weak bill, the voucher bill, that has never had a hearing, that
has never been marked up in committee, that has, as I called it in the
Committee on Rules, I called it a discharge petition, without 218 votes
automatically going to the House floor, without debate.
In the building trade, they have a term for this, Madam Speaker. It
is called a cleat, where you have a very, very weak board and you
staple or nail a strong board to support that. Well, in this case, the
weak board is the voucher school bill, and the strong piece of
legislation, the bipartisan piece of legislation, the legislation that
is bold and innovative and saves our public schools, every child and
every school, is the charter school bill.
I would encourage my colleagues on the right, who are always
concerned about Government intervention and Government strings being
attached to Government money, I would refer and I would ask unanimous
consent to have extraneous material entered into the record, a Wall
Street Journal article written by Gerald Seib referencing a Mr.
Trowbridge, who says, ``Government vouchers will invite Government
interference in private schools.'' ``Government vouchers will invite
Government interference in private schools.'' Your Wall Street Journal,
your private schools, your argument.
In The Washington Post, there is another article entitled ``A
Conservative Case Against School Choice,'' that Government money can
come without Government strings attached.
I would encourage my colleagues not to vote for the vouchers, to
defeat the rule, to defeat vouchers and vote for the cradle of
innovation. Vote for strong, strong public school voice. Vote for
creative new ideas that will rescue our public school system, keeping
dollars in public schools, and not giving Government strings and
Government attachments to our private school system.
Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 3, 1997]
School Choice: No Closed Book on Right Flank
(By Gerald F. Seib)
It's September, so the kids are back in school, the
teachers are at the front of the class, and the education
debate is about to begin in Washington. It promises to be a
lot more interesting than that 7:30 a.m. college calculus
class you've tried to forget.
For his part, President Clinton will be stepping out to
promote nationally standardized tests, arguing they will help
parents gauge schools and force educators to whip them into
shape. Conservative Republicans will claw back, arguing, on
principle, that standardized tests will only pull the federal
government deeper into state and local educational systems.
Meanwhile, surely all those conservatives will be renewing
their standard arguments in favor of school choice, including
government vouchers to help parents move their kids out of
public schools and into private ones. That, after all, is the
universal view on the right, isn't it?
Well, not exactly.
Anybody who thinks the conservative book on school choice
is closed will be surprised to open the new edition of
National Review, a Bible of the right, and find a long essay
arguing that conservatives ought to oppose school vouchers.
Vouchers, of course, would essentially be government rebates
to help parents pay the cost of private schooling. The essay,
written by Ronald Trowbridge, a prominent conservative
commentator from Hillsdale College in Michigan, reflects a
small but significant school of thinking on the right that
argues for re-examining the philosophical and political
underpinnings of the school-choice debate.
Mr. Trowbridge argues that conservatives ought to oppose
school vouchers for the same reason they oppose federally
written standard tests: Government vouchers will invite
government interference in private schools. This, he writes,
already is the view of many grass-roots Republicans and
conservatives who oppose vouchers because they ``realize that
government money to private schools sooner or later will be
followed by government control.''
Mr. Trowbridge is, frankly, a little ticked that
conservatives and Republican leaders have given so little
attention to this argument on vouchers. ``They are all just
raving about choice, and they never suggest there is anything
that could possibly be wrong with it,'' he says in an
interview.
Aside from the philosophical problem of opening the door to
more government involvement in private schools, Mr.
Trowbridge worries about the political downside risks for
Republicans. Having made the decision to send their children
to private schools for their special environment, he argues,
a lot of parents won't exactly welcome seeing that
environment changed by paving the way for people who weren't
willing to make that choice on their own.
That's a practical political concern also voiced by
Republican pollster William McInturff. He did a lot of early
work in favor of the school-choice issue and generally
remains a fan. But at a recent meeting of Republicans in
Indiana, Mr. McInturff and his firm warned Republicans that
there are limits of school choice as a national policy.
On VOUCHERS, Mr. McInturff worries about a backlash from
middle-class parents who have chosen, of their own free will,
to take a financial hit to send their kids to parochial or
private schools. These parents may see school vouchers as
merely a path to let in people who weren't willing to make
the same sacrifice on their own, thereby eroding the
specialness they thought se important for their kids. ``Those
parents think they have made difficult and painful sacrifices
to put their kids in those schools,'' Mr. McInturff says.
More broadly, he thinks many parents hear school-choice
rhetoric and conclude that it means ``somebody else's school
will get fixed, not mine.'' His polling suggests Republicans
score better with the public when they stress improving
teacher standards, getting parents more involved and forcing
more attention to basics in the classroom.
This is a big, broad debate that, far from being settled,
is only really beginning. The vehicle for carrying it out
this fall will be legislation introduced by Georgia GOP Sen.
Paul Coverdell, which calls not for vouchers, but for a kind
of first cousin to them. It would allow parents to put as
much as $2,000 a year into a tax-free savings account, then
withdraw the money for tuition at a private elementary or
secondary school.
Some people who don't like vouchers--Mr. Trowbridge, for
one--think this is a good alternative, because it doesn't
involve a direct payout from the federal government. Others
want to go all the way to vouchers, giving even low-income
parents a full ``choice'' in picking schools. The Clinton
administration will argue against all these variations, on
the grounds that they amount to abandoning the public-school
system that still educates 90% of American kids. Take notes;
there will be a political test in 1998 and 2000.
____
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 8, 1997]
A Conservative Case Against School Choice
(By Timothy Lamer)
No issue unites the right as school choice does. The
religious right, neocons, culturecons, supply-siders, and
libertarians all argue that vouchers will unleash market
forces and break the iron grip of the National Education
Association. Many on the right also see school choice as a
means to promote moral and religious education. But is
publicly funded school choice really conservative? In arguing
for vouchers, many of my brethren on the right sound a lot
like liberals. Some examples:
The Egalitarian Argument. James K. Glassman makes this
common argument in a Post column [op-ed. Sept. 3]: ``But
there's the matter of justice too. Chelsea Clinton's parents
can choose the best school for their child. Why can't the
parents of the poorest kids on the most dilapidated, drug-
infested block in Washington, Los Angeles or Newark?
Well, from that point of view, does justice demand that the
government provide poor families the same choices rich
families have in, say, health care? Conservatives have long
argued that inequality is a fact of life and
[[Page H9826]]
that when governments try to do something about it, they end
up harming everyone; that instead of building up the poor,
they tear down the wealthy and middle class. Could vouchers
harm private schools instead of helping public schools?
Conservatives who usually make such arguments against
misguided egalitarianism should at least consider the
possibility.
The Right-to-a-Subsidy Argument. The Heritage Foundation's
Dennis P. Doyle and Fordham University's Bruce C. Cooper
argue in another recent Post article [Outlook. Sept. 1] that
without school choice, poor children's religious liberties
are being violated. In other words, the Constitution obliges
taxpayers to send poor children to religious schools if their
parents so choose. ``The First Amendment clearly proscribes
the establishment of a state church,'' they write. ``But it
also guarantees the `free exercise' of religion.''
``Poor children--compelled by economic necessity to attend
government schools--are denied the opportunity to freely
exercise their religious beliefs within a school setting,''
they maintain.
This argument--that First Amendment guarantees are not
rights protected against government intrusion, but
entitlements produced by government spending--is normally
employed by extreme liberals, not Heritage Foundation
fellows. Do Doyle and Cooper think the government should have
to buy printing presses for poor people so they can exercise
their freedom of the press? Do they agree with liberals that
artists supported by the National Endowment for the Arts have
a First Amendment ``right'' to a federal subsidy? Poor people
have the right to freely exercise their religion, but they
don't have a right to do it with other people's money.
The Every-Other-Civilized-Country-Does-It Argument. Doyle,
this time in the American Enterprise, writes, ``In the
Netherlands, for example, 70 percent of children attend
denominational schools at public expense,'' and ``America is
the only civilized country in the world that does not support
religious elementary and secondary schools'' with government
funds.
Liberals often argue that every other civilized country has
high tax rates, statist health care and so forth; therefore
the United States should too. Conservatives usually retort
that America's unparalleled prosperity is a result of our
relative lack of government interference in the economy. We
point out that if this country had French-style economic
policies it would also have French levels of unemployment.
A similar argument could be made against Doyle. Why is the
United States more religious, relatively speaking, than the
countries he holds up as models? Perhaps because keeping
church and state separate has served to strengthen religion
in America.
The Just-Like-Pell-Grants Argument. On his show on the
conservative NET channel. Dan Mitchell of the Heritage
Foundation recently condemned the ACLU's opposition to school
choice: ``What's their rationale? Well, (they say) this is a
subsidy to a religious school. Well, now, hold on a second.
You have students attending Brigham Young University, Notre
Dame University, all sorts of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish--
all sorts of religious colleges--with Pell Grants and student
loans from the federal government.'' Bob Dole said that the
vouchers in his school choice proposal would be ``like Pell
Grants.''
If vouchers are like Pell Grants, does that mean they will
wildly inflate tuitions at private schools, as Pell Grants
and student loans have done at colleges and universities?
Will school choice become a sacred-cow program that grows
every year and that Republicans can cut only at a steep
political price, as Pell Grants and student loans have
become? Will vouchers be used by liberals as an excuse to
regulate private schools, as student aid has been used to
regulate higher education? Shouldn't conservatives be at
least a little worried that if vouchers are ``like Pell
Grants,'' they just might bear the same sour fruit?
Some on the right (including me) are leery of school
choice. For one thing, it looks an awful lot like taxing
citizens to advance religious teachings with which they
disagree, a type of coercion that should be especially
distasteful to religious citizens. And a heavy burden of
proof is on those who claim, against the weight of history,
that government money can come without government strings
attached.
Fears about school choice may turn out to be unwarranted,
but the liberal arguments some conservatives use to advance
vouchers aren't reassuring.
{time} 1045
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this undemocratic
process in which the voucher bill is being considered today. It is
ridiculous that the House will consider a bill which has existed for 1
week, had no hearings, no markups, now being considered under a closed
rule, thereby preventing Members from offering amendments.
Madam Speaker, there is one amendment that I would have liked to have
had the opportunity to offer, and that would be to ensure that civil
rights protections for all students would be available. Any entity that
receives Federal aid must comply with Federal civil rights laws and the
Justice Department is empowered to enforce those laws. This bill
contains a statutory trick that declares private schools receiving
vouchers are not recipients of Federal funds and therefore not subject
to Federal enforcement of civil rights laws. This provision is in the
bill intentionally.
The closed rule protects it from amendments so that we cannot correct
the egregious problem or any other problems that exist with the bill.
Make no mistake about it, the acceptance of the rule is acceptance of
the intentional exclusion of the applicability of Federal civil rights
laws.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to have considered amendments that
would have informed parents of expenses and special education students
of services available to them. But the acceptance of this rule prevents
it from being exposed for what it is, bad civil rights policy, bad
policy for parents of children who would be lured into this scam, as
well as bad policy for the 99 percent of the children who will be left
behind in overcrowded, crumbling and unfunded schools.
Madam Speaker, as for the poll that suggested that people supported
this, that poll measures only the knee jerk reaction to a sound bite.
We ought to put up a graph that shows what happened when people had an
opportunity to vote on it on a referendum, after they have been
educated about what a bad idea this is. The last 20 times it has been
on the ballot it has gone down by margins averaging 3 to 1. Vote no on
this rule. It is a bad bill.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Madam Speaker, I just want to make it very clear. We have
had extensive hearings in the subcommittee and the full committee on
the issue of greater parental choice and competition in education. We
had hearings on the charter school bill. We had hearings on the various
legislative parental choice proposals, including the one that is on the
floor.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
Mr. TALENT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time. There have been a number of comments this morning, Madam
Speaker, about the fact that this bill comes up under an unusual
procedure. It does. These are unusual times we live in. There are
millions of children trapped in schools, in America's urban core, where
they do not learn, where they are not safe, and where their parents
know with a terrible certainty that the schools are not going to
change.
Madam Speaker, I suggest that the only thing worse than being without
opportunity yourself is to know that unless you can do something that
you feel you cannot do, your children are not going to escape, your
children are not going to have any hope or any opportunity. This bill,
the HELP scholarships, offers a hand to these parents. It gives their
kids a chance, a modest chance, but a chance at a decent education and
a good school. If ever a bill aided the powerless, it is this bill.
But, Madam Speaker, if ever a bill offended the powerful, it is also
this bill, because there is in this country an establishment, and I
speak here without malice, but an establishment that controls millions
of dollars, whose power and prestige and position depend on defending
the status quo and public education in these poor neighborhoods. That
establishment, Madam Speaker, is not fighting this bill because they
are afraid it will fail. They are fighting it because they believe it
will succeed. They are not fighting this bill because they think it
will result in poorer education for these children. They are fighting
it because they think it will result in better education for these
children if they have the same chance and the same options that all of
us would want for our children in those circumstances. That
establishment does not want the embarrassment of having it proven that
at much less cost, these kids can be educated. It is not some great
deficiency with them, but rather the system that has failed them and
has failed their parents as well. And so that establishment has
supplied enormous and unrelenting
[[Page H9827]]
pressure against this bill and against Members of Congress to oppose
the bill.
I appreciate those of my colleagues who have been holding out and
appreciate those who are going to vote for this rule. I think we are
going to pass this rule, and I am grateful to all of my colleagues for
that. So, yes, Madam Speaker, this bill is here under an unusual
procedure. But the really unusual thing about it is that it is here at
all, given the opposition to it. It is only here because of the
forbearance and the patience of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, because of the persistence of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Riggs], because of the compassion of the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Watts], and because of the courage of the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Flake]. To them, to those men who have done so much on behalf of
these people who are so powerless, I express my appreciation. I ask all
the Members to remember, if we do not represent these people, nobody is
going to represent them. Do the right thing, vote for this rule, give
these people a chance when the bill comes up for a vote on final
passage.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, a sound public school system is how we
prepare all of our children for the high skilled, high wage jobs that
ensure America's leadership in this world marketplace and ensures that
these children will earn a livable wage and not be on welfare as
adults. Public education is the backbone of our country. It is why we
are a great Nation. Public education is available to all. It does not
discriminate, and it must be strengthened, not weakened.
Today's rule will profoundly weaken our public schools, forcing
charter school supporters to go on record supporting school voucher
plans that support a religious school. That, Madam Speaker, flies in
the face of providing opportunity to all children. We do not hesitate
in thinking that religious schools should be available. What we say is
choose your religious school. Do not take it away from our public
education system. That is where the real opportunity lies.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California [Mrs. Tauscher].
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
misguided rule and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote against it. This rule offers us tricks and treats just in time for
Halloween. The rule we are considering this morning provides a
complicated procedure whereby two separate bills, one bipartisan on
charter schools and one controversial on vouchers can be considered and
passed separately before being joined together and sent to the Senate
and thereafter to the President for his signature or veto.
The first bill has never been considered, the bill on vouchers, by
the authorizing committee. This is quite a trick. The other measure,
H.R. 2616, deals with charter schools. It has received great support by
a majority of Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on Education
and the Workforce. Charter schools are public schools that are created
by communities to stimulate reform and provide an alternative to
traditional public school systems. In short, charter schools are a real
treat for parents and children alike. I strongly oppose vouchers and
strongly support charter schools. I urge my colleagues to vote no on
this misguided rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Speaker, the issue before the House today
is a fundamental one, and that is how to improve the public education
system for our children. There are two stark choices. The first is the
voucher, which at best is a huge untested experiment that threatens to
significantly undermine our ability to fund our public schools. The
other choice is charter schools. Charter schools are one of the most
promising reforms taking place in our country today with respect to
public education. They are often created by parents, by teachers and by
communities who personally know children and care about them.
In my State, Florida, as in many States, many of the children that
are enjoying the benefits of charter schools are children with special
needs, are children that are at risk. In the 5 schools that have opened
in Florida, and certainly with respect to the over 15 yet to come, over
half of the children who were underperforming in the traditional public
school setting are now performing at at least above average in these
schools. These schools are innovative, they are unencumbered by many of
the rules plaguing our public school system and they have smaller class
sizes. These are positive reforms, not an abandonment of the public
school system. We need to support charter schools and defeat vouchers.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise today in strong opposition to this misguided rule and even
stronger opposition to this notion about a voucher bill. Traditionally
in politics we try to do the most good for the most people.
In America 90 percent of the students attend public schools. The
Republicans today would like to do a little good for a few people, and
that is why they are advocating a voucher plan that they say will give
choice to the underprivileged classes. Let us be candid. Private
schools, even if you had a voucher, do not have to take you, so the
troubled students from inner cities and the troubled students from poor
communities do not automatically get a choice even with their plan. But
more importantly, we ought to be assisting public school education,
where most students attend school. We need to work on providing repairs
for dilapidated schools. We need to expand buildings and build new
schools for overcrowded schools. We need to upgrade technology for
schools that are behind in the technological age. We have opportunities
for innovation and for choice, charter schools. I support that concept.
We need to help our local communities in a real way, supporting public
education, not through benign paternalism for a few. I urge rejection
of the rule.
{time} 1100
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dooley].
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong
opposition to this rule, and I do so because we have two very important
bills which have diametrically opposing objectives and it is senseless
for us to consider them in one particular rule.
The voucher bill will, without question, undermine our public
education system. It will siphon money out of our public schools, which
will ensure that we will see a deterioration in the education that can
be afforded to our Nation's children.
Vouchers will certainly undermine what has been one of the most
important historical institutions in this country, which has led more
to our economic advancement than anything else, our public schools. We
cannot afford to go down that path.
But there is a path we must take, and that is embodied in our charter
schools bill. We need to unleash the creativity and the innovation in
our public schools, and charter schools will provide that incentive.
For all too long, we have standardized the process of education in
our public schools. We need to unleash that creativity, and charter
schools will release that creativity and innovation.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
latest voucher bill to use taxpayers' money to subsidize private and
religious schools, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
It is misguided, it is wrong, and it is not what is in the best
interests of the 90 percent of the children in this country who attend
public schools every day.
[[Page H9828]]
I sought this office because I could not stand by and watch the
revolutionary Members of this Congress scapegoat, run down and bad
mouth our children and our public schools of this country. This voucher
bill is the latest attack on our public schools. Make no doubt about
it, it is an attack on our children, their parents and their
communities, and I urge Members to vote against it.
Public education is the foundation of a strong America. Our public
schools have served as a great equalizer in this country, and now we
want to undermine that. We cannot and must not let this happen. We can
improve our schools.
This is a defining vote. Members of this House are either for strong
public schools, or they are against public schools in this country, and
I urge Members to vote against this.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
It is an unfair rule in terms of gagging the consideration of this
voucher bill, and, I think, not providing good consideration of it.
Quite frankly, I am appalled at the fact that a bill like this would
come to the floor in terms of proposing vouchers. Our whole tradition
as a Nation for 200 years has been to build a solid public education
system, and that has been the core and the foundation on which our
Nation has been so successful.
I do not want to denigrate private schools. These exclusive, elite
religious schools do a lot of good. I am a product of such schools. But
I am also an educator and worked for years in terms of teaching, and
the abandonment of the public school system which is taking place by
virtue of trying to hold out this false hope of vouchers is wrong.
The issue here is going to be that we cannot abandon them. This is
the abandonment of the public school system, is what this is. That is
the message you are sending to hundreds of thousands of students in my
State in saying you are going to provide vouchers for a couple hundred
here and have a debate.
This is a false hope. This is an abandonment. Do not give up on the
kids in this country. Do not give up on the public education. Do not
give up on the 200 tradition we have had of building education for
democracy. It has been the basis of our success, and we are the most
successful culture and society in the history of the world.
What are we about here? Creating false hopes where they do not have
room in terms of these, where these schools can exclude individuals
when they want to. We know the way the system works for the elite and
others.
Yes, the schools work; but the fact is the fundamental thing for the
people in this country is to maintain a good public education system
and improve it. I have seen charter schools. They were initiated in my
district in Minnesota. They work, and they are a good idea, but there
are problems with those, too.
So we need to pay attention to those problems. They are right on the
front page of the Washington Post today. I can tell you stories about
religious activities that have taken place at these charter schools
that are questionable.
The governing structural we have in terms of freely elected people
that work and set the policies for our public schools in our States and
local communities are enormously important. Give them the support they
deserve, rather than using them as a political scapegoat.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
North Carolina for yielding.
When it comes to educating our kids, Washington does not know best.
For too long we have had this top-down approach here that the Federal
role in education is what it should be, and who is paying the price for
the failure? Our kids are paying the price, and we all know it. They
are not receiving the quality education they deserve, parents are
certainly not being utilized to their full potential in the education
process, and the time has come for change.
I happen to think charter schools represent good change, a unique
approach that empowers parents, teachers, students, letting them work
together to determine what actually works in education.
Local communities, not Washington politicians or special interests,
establish then what the curriculum is going to be and how it works. I
think it is a fact, charter schools are cost-effective. They get money
to the classroom, they enhance accountability, and are gaining
popularity around the country. It is time to deal with that.
The HELP Scholarship Act, to provide real educational opportunities
for the poorest of the poor in America, this is a good idea. The real
question though is a far more reasonable one: Do you support giving
local communities the option, and I say option, of using some Federal
dollars on scholarships for their poorest children? Who would say, no?
That makes good sense.
I am inclined to support and trust the local folks back home. We vote
for them at school board time. They do a pretty good job. I think their
judgment deserves to be heard in this.
Madam Speaker, I think it is time that we got the education of our
country's children back in the classroom, where it belongs, and out of
Washington, DC, the land of special interests and all wisdom.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Madam Speaker, I wanted to say as a member of the authorizing
committee and a strong, strong supporter of charter schools, I must
rise in opposition to this rule. I also want to associate myself with
the remarks of my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer], who observed that here we are on Halloween with
this scary rule. I totally agree with the gentleman.
I cannot support this rule. It is an extraordinary departure from
acceptable procedures. We should not have to take into account as we
vote on charter schools the fact that this rule will be putting these
two bills together as one, making vouchers part of the charter school
if it passes. That is the issue here on this vote.
This can only be conceived as a device to drag through vouchers
because it has serious opposition and it could not survive on its own
in full and open debate and in committee analysis.
I oppose the rule. Support charter schools, but oppose this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York, [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, there is nothing unusual about this rule.
We had the option of putting this rule out, making in order the charter
bill and substitute the Watts-Flake amendment to it, or to put them out
as two separate bills so that the issues could be separated and Members
would have the choice of voting for either or both if they want to.
That is a reasonable rule. You ought to come over here and vote for it.
Let me mention on behalf of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Hoekstra] here that we have had 15 hearings in 13 States and heard over
200 witnesses overwhelmingly expressing support, parents of different
socioeconomic backgrounds for more choice.
Let me say in this country, and I think the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Flake] in New York City said it very, very clearly. We spend
billions of dollars on education at the Federal, State, and local
level. Even with all these dollars, American children continue to lag
behind other nations in most areas of achievement, particularly in the
inner cities of this country. We need to stick up for the inner cities
of this country.
Isn't it about time we start thinking about the future of these
children? I am the father of five and the grandfather of six. We need
to give all these children whatever level, whatever their ethnic
backgrounds, a future. Come over here and vote for both of these bills.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield one minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
[[Page H9829]]
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me say how unfair on the
day of Halloween that we play such trickery. It is interesting, all
those hearings about the bipartisan part of this, that was charter
schools. We do believe in the opportunities for parents and local
governments to involve themselves. But there was no consensus on this
so-called trickery, Halloween antics and tactics dealing with the
voucher program.
What it simply is is a complete abdication and abandonment of our
responsibility of the virtues and values of public school education;
the very virtue and value of public school education that has trained
the dominance of your scientists and doctors, lawyers, teachers, truck
drivers, Presidents, and Congress, people of the United States of
America.
How tragic, on a day when children have fun, that we come to the well
of the House with a false rule that misleads all of us and abandons our
children. We need to stand on the side of public education, stand on
the side of understanding, and if we take away some $50 million, 90
percent of our students in public school education will suffer. When
they said go West, young man and young woman, those circles of wagons
built the first public schools. Why should we in 1997 abandon those
schools? Vote down this rule. Support charter schools and vote down
this helpless rule that deals with taking away money from our children
in our public school system.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for
2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ROEMER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
my good friend, who I really like a lot and we kid each other, I
respect, has just said that this is not an unusual rule. Let me bring
us back to Halloween analogy and talk about Jekyll and Hyde.
Now, we have a rule here, Madam Speaker, that on the one hand we have
a bipartisan charter school bill that has strong support on both sides.
I believe, with the help of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]
and my help on this side, because it invests in every child, in every
public school, with innovation and less regulation. Let us come up with
new ideas to save our public education system and let us not encumber
those schools with Federal and State bureaucratic dictates that will
hinder learning in those schools.
Let us have these schools be cradles of innovation. Let us have these
schools be boldly having new ideas come forward to the schools.
On the other hand, we have vouchers. We do not have any markups on
this bill in committee, in the Committee on Education and Labor,
because they do not have the votes for that bill. I do not think they
have the votes for that bill on the House floor.
I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote
against the rule, because it is an unfair rule, it unfairly intertwines
a very strong bill like charter schools with the vouchers, if vouchers
pass. However, the first vote next week will be on vouchers. If we can,
in a bipartisan way defeat vouchers, then have a straight up and down
vote on charter schools, we will send the Senate the charter school
bill.
We will show this country we can work in a bipartisan way to help
save our public education system with less regulation, with more bold
innovative ideas. We will show this country just as we worked together
on balancing the budget, just as we worked together on providing modest
tax relief, we are going to work together on bipartisan help in solving
education problems for all parents.
{time} 1115
Now, we discovered, Madam Speaker, that the IRS was badly broken. We
did not say we were going to fix the IRS for a couple of people; we
said we were going to fix the IRS for everybody. Vouchers say we are
going to fix schools for just a few thousand people and leave the rest
of these schoolchildren in bad public schools.
Let us resurrect, reform, boldly innovate in the public school
system. That is what charter schools do, that is what bipartisan
legislation we have before us does for every child, for every public
school. Let us vote down this rule. Let us defeat vouchers next week,
and let us show wide bipartisan support to vote for charter schools.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House.
Mr. GINGRICH. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from
North Carolina, for yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to follow my friend, the gentleman from
Indiana, because I find his argument so perplexing, and I wanted a
chance to chat about it. Fourteen years ago, under President Reagan,
the Department of Education published a book called ``A Nation At
Risk,'' and said, our schools are in trouble. For 14 years we have
heard politicians and bureaucrats promise us, soon we will fix it.
We had a report come out yesterday for the Washington, DC, schools,
which spend $10,000 a child. According to the Department of Education,
it is the most expensive system in the country. What did it say? It
said two things. It said, first of all, if you actually applied
standards to second and third graders, standards they have proposed to
apply next year, over 40 percent of them would fail.
Now, the children are not failing. The 40 percent who are going to
fail are children trapped in a system destroying their future. These
same children, in a decent school with decent discipline, with a fair
chance, can graduate and go to college, not to prison. But they are
trapped, 40 percent. We know that today, from yesterday's paper.
A study just came out that said the longer you are in the D.C.
schools, the less likely you are to score at grade level; that
literally, the percentage goes up every year. The longer you are in the
D.C. public schools, the less likely you are to be able to score at
grade level. For $10,000 a year, we are not only trapping these
children, we are weakening their likelihood of scoring.
Here is what I am fascinated by. A ``no'' vote on this rule is a vote
of fear. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that the big inner-
city schools that are failing will fail? They are already failing. Are
they afraid that children might be liberated to go to a school that has
discipline? Why would Members oppose that? They say to us, we should
help the public schools reform. But that is exactly what the bill of
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] does. It has a charter school
provision for the public schools. It does exactly what the gentleman
says.
In addition, we say if your local system is so terrible that you
believe your child's life will be destroyed and their future will be
ruined, you should have the right to choose a scholarship so your child
can go to a school that is safe, drug-free, with discipline, and has a
chance to learn. What is so frightening about that, that requires a
public school to fail so badly, to be such a disaster, that the parent
decides to go to the extra effort to make the extra choice?
Yet, those who would vote ``no'' today are voting ``no'' out of fear.
They are afraid to give the parents the right to choose. They are
afraid to give the children the right to choose.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, why are the gentlemen there afraid to have a
separate vote on these two issues?
Mr. GINGRICH. We have two separate votes. This will come up as an
amendment.
Mr. CLAY. On the rule.
Mr. GINGRICH. The votes will be separate. If the gentleman wants to
vote against allowing poor children to have the choice of going to a
separate school, is going against parents having the right to choose,
they will get that vote under this rule.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, who I know visits many schools
in Washington, I have visited a school called the Options Charter
School, where they serve 100 percent minority, 100 percent eligible for
free
[[Page H9830]]
and reduced lunches. Most of those students are two to three grade
levels behind where they should be, and they failed through the D.C.
public school system.
We created a charter school there. That is our solution partly, not a
panacea or silver bullet, but this Options Charter School, to say we
want to help with discipline, with safety, with more parental
involvement, with better ratios of students and teachers in these
charter schools, and experimentation. That is our solution.
Mr. GINGRICH. OK. But I would say to my friend, first of all, voting
for this rule brings that option to the floor, and I will vote with the
gentleman on that option. There is no reason to be against this rule if
the gentleman wants to help charter schools. This rule brings the
charter school bill to the floor.
But what seems to be frightening the gentleman, and I am not sure why
the gentleman is frightened, is we also offer an alternative, if in
fact there are not charter schools, or there are not enough charter
schools, or the school is so terrible.
And I would point out to the gentleman, the President the other day
went to Chicago where Mayor Richard Daley is doing a good job. The
President said, if you cannot fix the school, fire the principal. If
firing the principal does not work, fire the teachers. If that does not
work, he said, close the school.
We have an alternative. There are 4,000 slots available today in
Washington, DC, for children to go to schools that are private, that
have a high graduation rate, that have a high education rate, that have
a low drug-use rate, that have a low violence rate. There are 4,000
slots available today. We have an answer when the President closes that
school he talked about. I do not know that the gentleman has an answer
to that.
Mr. ROEMER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
do have an answer.
Mr. GINGRICH. What is the gentleman's answer?
Mr. ROEMER. My answer is the Democratic Party's model is the Chicago
reform system.
Mr. GINGRICH. What happens in a neighborhood----
Mr. ROEMER. You do fire teachers, principals, and you reconstitute
schools that are not working. That is what we are doing in Chicago. We
are not giving up on the public school system.
Mr. GINGRICH. We are not, either.
If I may reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, I just want to make a point
here. I think this particular canard needs to be put down right now. I
am a little fed up with Democrats who come in here and say, well, you
all do not want to save the public schools.
Let me make two points. First of all, I went to public school. My
children went to public school. My wife went to public school. We have
lived our personal commitment. I have taught in a public high school.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] spent years of his
career in public schools as a teacher, as a coach, as a counselor, as a
principal. We are committed to public school, and we live it. Our
children have been there. But we also do not believe children should be
destroyed on the altar of a union and children should be destroyed on
the altar of a bureaucracy.
Notice what this rule does, because I think the gentleman ought to be
fair about this. This rule brings to the floor the charter school bill
to help public schools. That is coming to the floor under this rule. So
a ``yes'' vote here is not an antipublic school vote. A ``yes'' vote
here is a pro public school, pro charter school vote, and a positive
vote for those children and those parents trapped in bad neighborhoods
that the system has not reformed.
I just want to pose this thought. I had 70 children surrounding me
yesterday, 70 children, all of them African-American, all of them from
a neighborhood where, for $10,000 a year, their bureaucracy had failed
them. I would say to my friends in the Democratic Party, why do they
keep the children trapped? What are they so afraid of that they will
not give the parents a chance to save their children from jail by
giving them a chance to go to a school with discipline, that is drug-
free, where they graduate and have a chance to go to college?
Vote ``yes'' on this rule, and let us have an honest up-or-down
debate on some very good public school choice and some very good
parental choice.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
this bipartisan bill but with disappointment in the majorities' use of
this important legislation to advance their political agenda.
Most of us agree that we need to present some form of alternative for
children who do not have access to quality public schools. Charter
schools present a viable alternative to traditional public education
for all children in the United States. Offering a choice to 2,000
students for whom there is insufficient space in the schools they could
afford with vouchers is not a solution.
On Wednesday, the District of Columbia chartering authority
interviewed applicants interested in opening 1 of the 20 new charter
schools that we authorized last Congress. I am optimistic about these
new schools. There are currently 3 charter schools operating in the
District. This is fewer than the number of charter applicants approved
by the Charter School Board. The other approved charter schools could
not open because they lacked sufficient startup funds. This is not the
result of District of Columbia financial mismanagement. As my
colleagues know from their own States and districts, it has been the
case for approved charters nationally. Some 59 percent of charter
school operators reported a lack of these funds. With the passage of
enabling legislation in more States every legislative session, startup
funding needs will only increase. In fiscal year 1997, State requests
for charter school funding exceeded appropriations by $24 million. We
are addressing this problem in this charter schools amendments bill. We
need the increased authorization to meet the $100 million
appropriation, and we need the increase in the length of the Federal
grant from 3 to 5 years to meet this need.
The need will not be met if we attach a voucher provision to this
bill. The HELP Scholarship Act was only introduced into the House 1
week ago. It has not been subjected to committee scrutiny, and no
hearings have been held on this bill, cutting out the hearing process
and any input from the people on whom it would have the greatest
impact. The attachment of this voucher language in conference would
clearly compromise the bipartisan nature of the charter school bill. It
should be considered on its own merit after appropriate committee
scrutiny and approval.
Unlike the HELP Scholarship bill, the Charter School Amendments Act
was considered by its committee of jurisdiction, the Education and the
Workforce Committee. After committee members had an opportunity to
amend the bill, it passed out of committee with a strong, bipartisan
majority. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule to allow
attachment of the HELP Scholarship bill in conference. It threatens
final passage of this important legislation.
Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this
rule to join two bills, H.R. 2746 and H.R. 2616. These bills reflect
two fundamentally different concepts of what is needed to improve the
education system in our country, and combination is absolutely
unacceptable.
H.R. 2746, Helping Empower Lower Income Parents Scholarships, is a
voucher bill that will steal money from our public school system. At a
time when our public school system is in desperate need of resources to
assure all children in this country are given the educational
opportunities they deserve, this bill moves us in the wrong direction.
Giving a small number of students taxpayer money to attend a private
school does nothing to improve our school system as a whole and takes
away resources from the 90 percent of the children in our country who
attend public schools. This is not the kind of change we need.
H.R. 2616, the Charter School Amendments, is the type of innovation
that could improve our public school system and these changes make
sense. Charter schools provide for local control and opportunities for
innovation in a public school system, while assuring the schools are
held accountable to specified standards. All students can take
advantage of the opportunities that charter schools provide and these
changes encourage the first class schools that we are looking for in
our public school system.
Congress must be allowed the opportunity to debate and vote on these
two fundamentally different bills separately.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in
opposition to this rule. My colleagues, this is nothing less than an
extraordinary rule. This rule provides for consideration of two
entirely unrelated pieces of legislation: H.R. 2616, the Charter
Schools Amendments Act and H.R. 2746, the Helping Empower Low-Income
Parents Scholarships Act. Ironically, although perhaps not
unexpectedly, the rule allows amendments to H.R. 2616, a bipartisan
bill enjoying broad support,
[[Page H9831]]
but requires that H.R. 2746, a controversial and deeply flawed piece of
legislation, be considered under a completely closed rule. Finally,
although the rule allows for a separate vote on each bill, it requires
the Clerk to join them into a single bill before transmittal to the
Senate, thus, joining two unrelated bills into one.
This rule is certainly a clever and strategic ploy to give H.R. 2746
some cover as it moves into the Senate. Do we really want the education
of our Nation's young people subject to clever political and partisan
ploys? Do we really mean to allow the American public education system
to be upset by the unfairness and trickery that underlie this rule?
Because that is what we are doing with this rule. We are allowing H.R.
2746 to proceed to vote without a chance of amendment. We are allowing
it to move to a vote without the opportunity to mediate some of the
more troublesome provisions it contains. When you vote on this rule
today, I ask my colleagues to remember that this is a vote about our
children and the future of the American public education system.
Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to voice my objections to H.R. 2746. The
primary point of concern, for myself, and many other members of this
body in regard to H.R. 2746, is the school scholarship or vouchers
provision included in this revision of title VI of the Education and
Secondary Reform Act.
This provision would authorize the distribution of scholarships to
low to moderate income families to attend public or private schools in
nearby suburbs or to pay the costs of supplementary academic programs
outside regular school hours for students attending public schools.
However, only certain students will receive these tuition scholarships.
This legislative initiative could obviously set a dangerous precedent
from this body as to the course of public education in America for
decades to come. If the U.S. Congress abandons public education, and
sends that message to localities nationwide, a fatal blow could be
struck to public schooling. The impetus behind this legislative agenda
is clearly suspect. Instead of using these funds to improve the quality
of public education, this policy initiative enriches fiscally
successful, local private and public institutions. Furthermore, if this
policy initiative is so desirable, why are certain DC students left
behind? Is this plan the right solution? I would assert that it is not.
Unless all of our children are helped, what value does this grand
political experiment have?
I see this initiative as a small step in trying to position the
Government behind private elementary and secondary schools. The
ultimate question is why do those in this body who continue to support
public education with their lip service, persist in trying to slowly
erode the acknowledged sources of funding for our public schools?
Public education, and its future, is an issue of the first magnitude.
One that affects the constituency of every Member of this House, and
thus deserves full and open consideration.
School vouchers, have not been requested by public mandate from the
Congress. In fact, they have failed every time they have been offered
on a State ballot by 65 percent or greater. If a piece of legislation
proposes to send our taxpayer dollars to private or religious schools,
the highest levels of scrutiny are in order, and an amendment that may
correct such a provision is unquestionably germane. Nine out of ten
American children attend public schools, we must not abandon them,
their reform is our hope.
I would like now to contrast the harm H.R. 2746 would bring to the
American public school system to the good that is promised by H.R.
2616. H.R. 2616 is a bill to which we all can, and should, lend our
support. H.R. 2616 enjoys broad bipartisan support and encourages
innovative approaches to educating the children in our public schools.
The key elements of charter schools are that they give parents and
teachers the opportunity and flexibility to try innovative approaches
to providing a high quality, stimulating education, in exchange for
being held accountable for academic results and proper management of
funds.
Charter schools have faced a substantial problem, however, in the
form of a lack of adequate startup funds. According to the Department
of Education's first year report on charter schools, inadequate startup
funds are the most commonly cited barrier that charter schools face.
Nearly 60 percent of charter schools--both newly established ones and
those that had been in operation for a year or two--cited a lack of
startup funds and operational funds as a problem. H.R. 2616 answers
this problem by authorizing $100 million in fiscal year 1998 for the
Federal Charter Schools Program intended primarily to offset the
schools startup costs.
My colleagues, I urge you to vote against this extraordinary rule. I
urge you to vote no and in so doing signal your opposition to the so-
called ``HELP'' Scholarships Act and your support for the Charter
Schools Amendment Act.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 195, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 566]
YEAS--222
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flake
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--195
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
[[Page H9832]]
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--16
Ackerman
Cannon
Cubin
Cunningham
Deutsch
Foglietta
Foley
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gonzalez
McIntosh
McNulty
Payne
Schiff
Visclosky
Weldon (FL)
{time} 1143
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Deutsch against.
Ms. SLAUGHTER changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 198, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 567]
AYES--214
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--198
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Goode
Gordon
Green
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--21
Ackerman
Cubin
Cunningham
Deutsch
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Klink
Lipinski
McIntosh
McNulty
Payne
Schiff
Visclosky
Weldon (FL)
{time} 1201
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Deutsch against.
Mr. McHUGH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to committee was laid on the table.
____________________