[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.

                          ____________________