[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9941-H9965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 HELPING EMPOWER LOW-INCOME PARENTS (HELP) SCHOLARSHIPS AMENDMENTS OF 
                                  1997

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 288, I call up 
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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 2746 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2746

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Empower Low-income 
     Parents (HELP) Scholarships Amendments of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 6003 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``definition'' and 
     inserting ``definitions'';
       (2) by striking ``(1)'', ``(2)'', and ``(3)'';
       (3) in the matter proceeding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     `` title the term'' and inserting the following:
     ``title--
       ``(1) the term'';
       (4) by striking the period at the end; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) the term `poverty line' means the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved; and
       ``(3) the term `voluntary public and private parental 
     choice program' means a program that meets the requirements 
     of section 6301(b)(9), is authorized by State law, and 
     includes 1 or more private schools to allow low-income 
     parents to choose the appropriate school for their 
     children.''.

     SEC. 3. ALLOCATION TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       Section 6102(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Distribution Rule.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     from the sums made available each year to carry out this 
     title, the State educational agency shall distribute not less 
     than 90 percent to local educational agencies within such 
     State according to the relative enrollments in public and 
     private, nonprofit schools within the school districts of 
     such agencies, adjusted, in accordance with criteria approved 
     by the Secretary, to provide higher per pupil allocations to 
     local educational agencies which have the greatest numbers or 
     percentages of children whose education imposes a higher than 
     average cost per child, such as--
       ``(A) children living in areas with high concentrations of 
     low-income families;
       ``(B) children from low-income families; and
       ``(C) children living in sparsely populated areas.
       ``(2) Exception.--A State that has enacted or will enact a 
     law that establishes a voluntary public and private parental 
     choice program and that complies with the provisions of 
     section 6301(b)(9) may reserve an additional 15 percent from 
     the sums made available each year to carry out this title if 
     the additional amount reserved is used exclusively for 
     voluntary public and private parental choice programs.''.

     SEC. 4. USES OF FUNDS.

       (a) State Uses of Funds.--Section 6201(a)(1) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) establishing voluntary public and private parental 
     choice programs in accordance with section 6301(b)(9); and''.
       (b) Local Uses of Funds.--Section 6301(b) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) voluntary public and private parental choice programs 
     that--
       ``(A) are located in an area that has the greatest numbers 
     or percentages of children--
       ``(i) living in areas with a high concentration of low-
     income families;
       ``(ii) from low-income families; or
       ``(iii) living in sparsely populated areas;
       ``(B) ensure that participation in such a voluntary public 
     and private parental choice program is limited to families 
     whose family income does not exceed 185 percent of the 
     poverty line;
       ``(C) ensure that--
       ``(i) the maximum amount of a voluntary public and private 
     parental choice scholarship does not exceed the per pupil 
     expenditure of the local educational agency in which an 
     applicant for a voluntary public and private parental choice 
     scholarship resides;
       ``(ii) the minimum amount of a voluntary public and private 
     parental choice scholarship is not less than 60 percent of 
     the per pupil expenditure of the local educational agency in 
     which an applicant for a voluntary public and private 
     parental choice scholarship resides or the cost of tuition at 
     a private school, whichever is less;
       ``(D) ensure that for a private school that chooses to 
     participate in a voluntary public and private parental choice 
     program--
       ``(i) such a school is permitted to impose the same 
     academic requirements for all students, including students 
     selected for a scholarship as provided under this paragraph;
       ``(ii) receipt of funds under this title is not conditioned 
     with requirements or regulations that preclude the use of 
     such funds for sectarian educational purposes or require 
     removal of religious art, icons, scripture, or other symbols; 
     and
       ``(iii) such a school is in compliance with all State 
     requirements applicable to the operation of a private school 
     that are in effect in the year preceding the date of the 
     enactment of the Helping Empower Low-income Parents (HELP) 
     Scholarships Amendments of 1997;
       ``(E) may allow State, local, and private funds to be used 
     for voluntary public and private parental choice programs; 
     and
       ``(F) ensure priority for students who were enrolled in a 
     public school in the school year preceding the school year in 
     which a voluntary public and private parental choice school 
     begins operation.''.

     SEC. 5. EVALUATION.

       Part D of title VI of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of section 6402 the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(j) Application.--This section shall not apply to funds 
     that a State or local educational agency uses to establish a 
     voluntary public and private parental choice program in 
     accordance with section 6301(b)(9).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of such part the following new 
     sections:

     ``SEC. 6404. EVALUATION.

       ``(a) Annual Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Contract.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall enter into a contract, with an evaluating agency 
     that has demonstrated experience in conducting 
     evaluations, for the conduct of an ongoing rigorous 
     evaluation of the programs established under section 
     6301(b)(9).
       ``(2) Annual evaluation requirement.--The contract 
     described in paragraph (1) shall require the evaluating 
     agency entering into such contract to evaluate annually each 
     program established under section 6301(b)(9) in accordance 
     with the evaluation criteria described in subsection (b).
       ``(3) Transmission.--The contract described in paragraph 
     (1) shall require the evaluating agency entering into such 
     contract to transmit to the Comptroller General of the United 
     States the findings of each annual evaluation under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(b) Evaluation Criteria.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States, in consultation with the Secretary, shall 
     establish minimum criteria for evaluating each program 
     established under section 6301(b)(9). Such criteria shall 
     provide for--
       ``(1) a description of the implementation of each program 
     established under section 6301(b)(9) and the program's 
     effects on all participants, schools, and communities in the 
     program area, with particular attention given to the effect 
     of parent participation in the life of the school and the 
     level of parental satisfaction with the program; and
       ``(2) a comparison of the educational achievement of all 
     students in the program area, including a comparison 
     between--
       ``(A) students receiving a voluntary public and private 
     parental choice scholarships under section 6301(b)(9); and
       ``(B) students not receiving a voluntary public and private 
     parental choice scholarships under such section.
       ``(c) Evaluation Funds.--Pursuant to the authority provided 
     under section 14701, the Secretary shall reserve not more 
     than 0.50 percent of the amount of funds made available under 
     section 6002 to carry out this section.

[[Page H9942]]

     ``SEC. 6405. APPLICABILITY.

       ``(a) Not School Aid.--Subject to subsection (b), funds 
     used under this title to establish a voluntary public and 
     private parental choice program shall be considered 
     assistance to the student and shall not be considered as 
     assistance to any school that chooses to participate in such 
     program.
       ``(b) No Federal Control.--The Secretary is not permitted 
     to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over 
     curricula, program of instruction, administration, or 
     personnel of any school that chooses to participate in a 
     voluntary public and private choice program established under 
     6309(b)(9).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 288, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Clay], each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I really did not plan to participate in 
this debate today, but as I thought about it over the weekend, I kept 
thinking that there probably will be more heat and more emotion than 
facts. And I thought perhaps I could start it by simply calling some of 
the facts to my colleagues' attention.
  The first thing they probably will hear is that this is anti public 
education. I can assure my colleagues, never under my watch will 
anything occur on the floor of the House that is anti public education. 
I would imagine 80 or 85 percent of us have graduated from public 
schools. I spent my first 12 years there. I also spent 22 years as a 
public educator. So I want to make very sure that we do not start out 
with the business, well, this is anti public education.
  Our problem is, as I have said many times, 75 percent of our schools 
do well, 75 percent of our children do well in public education. In 
that, 25 percent, with some schools within those school districts, they 
do well.
  However, in the 21st century, we cannot have 75 percent of our 
children getting a quality education; we have to have 100 percent. Why? 
First of all, we are in a very competitive world. If they cannot play a 
leading role, then we cannot as a society, we cannot as a country, 
continue to be the powerful Nation that we are.
  Secondly, we cannot allow 25 percent of our children not to have a 
quality education if they are ever going to get a piece of the American 
dream. We decided a year or two ago that we positively were going to 
move them to the position where they can get a piece of the American 
dream. Without a quality education, that cannot happen. Let me tell you 
about the last 30 years. I was not the chairman of the committee the 
last 30 years. We were not in the majority the last 30 years.
  We did program after program after program, well-intended, with the 
idea that we were going to find some way to make sure that all children 
have a quality education. Thirty years later, billions of dollars 
later, we still have 25 percent without a quality education. Who are 
they? They are the poorest of the poor, with no one to speak for them, 
with no one to take the bull by the horns and say, everyone will 
receive a quality education. Of course, we know testing is not going to 
give them that quality education.
  The second thing you are going to hear: ``But we are taking Federal 
tax dollars for private and parochial schools.'' Again, I was not in 
charge the last 30 years, but I can read very quickly 17 programs where 
this happened during the last 30 years: Title I, Education for the 
Disadvantaged; title II, Teacher Training; title III, Education 
Technology; title IV, Safe and Drug-free Schools; title VI, which is 
what we are talking about today, used by private and parochial schools, 
Innovative Education Program; title VII, bilingual education; Part E of 
title XIV; Goals 2000; IDEA; transfer of excess and surplus Federal 
computer equipment; child nutrition programs; child care development 
block grants; national service; National Endowment of the Humanities; 
National Endowment for the Arts; National Science Foundation; 
nonimmigration students, just to mention a few. These are all private 
and parochial schools using Federal tax dollars. It is the law. It did 
not happen during my reign; it happened in the 30 years prior to that.
  The third thing Members are going to hear is that we are taking money 
from public schools. That is not true either. The appropriators have 
seen fit to add $40 million to title VI, not taking anything away from 
anyone. They are adding $40 million.
  The next thing I would like to make sure Members understand, this 
legislation has a very, very narrow scope. Why does it have a narrow 
scope? Well, I think it is called pleasing the chairman. Now, what is 
in that narrow scope? Why is it so narrow?
  First of all, we have never told a State legislature before that they 
have to pass a law to participate in title VI. In this legislation, we 
say to the State legislature, for the first time, if anybody is going 
to use any of this title VI money, for public and private school 
choice; they must pass a law. We never did that before in title VI; we 
sent them a block and they did their thing. Now we say they must pass 
legislation. That will take a while.
  Secondly, the State and the public schools must then determine 
whether they want to use any of the title VI money for that purpose. 
They do not have to use any of it.
  Again, I hope that by introducing some of these things that are fact 
rather than an emotional discussion of the issue, that Members will 
understand exactly what we are doing. I want to repeat what I said 
earlier. We positively have to find a way, if we are going to remain a 
viable entity in this world in the 21st century, to ensure every child 
has a possibility of a quality education.
  We have tried, and we have tried, and we have tried, and it was all 
well meaning. We did not succeed. Now we want to try something a little 
bit different, nothing new; it is still part of title VI. But let us 
make sure that every child, no matter how poor the family may be, no 
matter how terrible the conditions may be in which the child lives, 
that they do have an opportunity for a quality education.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1965, Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, chairman of 
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, gave a 
forceful speech advocating a greater role of the Federal Government 
through passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

                              {time}  1715

  In that great speech he said, ``We are compelled to give our most 
sincere and dedicated attention to the masses of our American youth, 
youth who give America new vision and new goals. We must not wait any 
longer. It is later than you think.''
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we are witness to the Republicans' contempt for 
the masses, for the 50 million children who attend public schools. 
Today, they bring to this floor a bill that would steal almost $2 
billion from our public school systems. This proposal sends a clear and 
chilling signal that the Republicans have declared war on public 
education.
  The most cynical and pernicious provision of this bill is the 
wholesale and deliberate denial of civil rights. The parents of low-
income students who fall for this voucher scheme will be shocked to 
learn that their children will attend a private school that has no 
obligation to protect them from discrimination on the basis of race, 
sex, national origin, or age. The blatant disregard for civil rights 
fostered by proponents of this bill is an abomination.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a letter from the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights vehemently opposing this Trojan Horse. In 
that letter, it was pointed out that under this bill, and I quote, 
``Private schools could permit widespread and severe racial harassment 
of students in class, provide female students with inferior athletic 
facilities, and refuse to make any accommodations for disabled 
students.''
  The letter concludes, ``In short, H.R. 2746 would allow private 
schools to ignore the civil rights laws that have long protected 
students in federally funded education.''
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an outrageous abandonment of civil rights. 
I find it ironic that the Speaker of the

[[Page H9943]]

House stood on the floor of this House last week expressing compassion 
for little black children, while in fact this bill is striping away 30 
years of civil rights protections from the very children he professed 
to help.
  Mr. Speaker, in all of my years in Congress, I have not heard so many 
in this Chamber, who for years have refused to look beyond race and 
poverty, to see the human needs, now plead so eloquently for those who 
are victimized by their race and economic condition. No one should be 
deceived by the false promise that this bill is about saving poor 
children from the debilitating fate of inner-city schools.
  Last year, Republicans in this House fought with every fiber of their 
being against increasing the minimum wage. In the 104th Congress, 223 
House Republicans voted to cut child nutrition programs by $10 billion 
and to eliminate the Federal school lunch program entirely. Where was 
their compassion then?
  If proponents of this bill are genuinely concerned about bad schools 
in black neighborhoods and want to give real choice to poverty stricken 
and educationally deprived students, let them mandate a program to give 
poor children the opportunity to attend any public school in the area, 
even in the most affluent neighboring school districts. That would be 
real public school choice. No reasonable, fair-minded person would deny 
that schools in more affluent areas have greater resources and their 
students receive a more complete and demanding education than children 
in poor neighborhoods.
  This voucher bill has been condemned by a broad coalition of 
education groups because it does nothing to address crumbling and 
overcrowded schools or to improve teacher performance for the 50 
million children now attending public schools.
  I challenge the Republican leadership to stop playing politics with 
America's school children and to stop bashing public schools, parents, 
and teachers. I challenge them, Mr. Speaker, to embrace America's 
public schools instead of attacking them with this deceitful voucher 
scheme.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that this subject of giving parents more 
choice to select the school and the educational environment that is 
appropriate and best for their child is too important to be demeaned by 
the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, who is perhaps 
trying to conjure up a ghost from the last Congress.
  Apparently, he and members of his party are still denying that, 
slowly but surely, the Contract with America has become a reality. But 
the fact of the matter is we never proposed eliminating the school 
lunch program. We did propose block granting it to States and local 
education agencies to make it more efficient in order to serve more 
children.
  That said, let me say that I believe there are many Members on the 
other side of the aisle who want to show contempt for the fundamental 
right of parents to choose, who do not believe that we need improvement 
through competition and choice in our education system today, who are 
fundamentally opposed to parents having the freedom to select the 
education again that is best and most appropriate for their child.
  So I say to them, let freedom reign in education. Let those who are 
less privileged, those who cannot afford to attend the better schools 
that might be financially beyond their limits, let them have the same 
right, let those families have the same right as more fortunate and 
more affluent families.
  And understand this, we have too many school children in this country 
today who are missing out, who are not getting the kind of education 
they need to prepare them for the 21st century. And that, my 
colleagues, is the real disgrace and the real tragedy that we ought to 
be debating in this Chamber, not raising red herrings.
  Now, how do they explain opinion poll after opinion poll showing that 
an overwhelming number of the American people, particularly adults of 
child-bearing age, now favor parental choice in education? How do they 
explain that away? And why do the numbers go through the roof when we 
talk about minority parents? Could it be because they are the ones that 
are right there that have the best knowledge of this issue, that have 
the greatest concern about the future well-being of their children? 
That would only be natural for them to have those sentiments. And every 
one of us who is a parent, who is faced with the ultimate 
responsibility of bringing into and raising another child in this 
world, ought to understand those sentiments, ought to sympathize with 
those parents, and ought to get behind the move to inject more 
competition and choice in our school system today.
  Schools should be a magnet and not a trap. Let me tell my colleagues 
one thing I believe to the core of my being, and that is the education 
system we have in America today will reform itself, it will improve 
itself only when parents are free to choose the schools that they think 
are best able to educate their children.
  And we are seeing, to their credit, many school districts around the 
country beginning to respond to the demand on the part of consumers, 
parents, and guardians for more choice, seeing them respond to that 
demand for competition by presenting more educational options for 
parents, whether it be home schooling, private school choice, public 
school choice, as we will be debating on the floor later tonight when 
we talk about more Federal taxpayer funding for public choice schools, 
independent charter schools. But school districts are responding to 
their credit.
  We have to address this problem. It is not going to go away. To the 
extent we have a growing gap, an inequity in American society between 
the haves and have nots or have less, it is an education gap. There is 
a growing gap between the rich and poor in this society. And it is no 
accident. It begins as a gap between the well-educated and the poorly 
educated. And for all of us concerned about the quality of education in 
America today, I submit to you that is a problem that we ought to 
address together in as nonpartisan a way as possible. But more 
importantly, for the students who will be the future have-nots, the 
students who are receiving a poor or inadequate education, for them and 
for their families, it is a tragedy and a national disgrace.
  Let me tell my colleagues what this bill does very simply, because it 
is a very, very modest bill. It amends the title VI block grant, the 
old chapter 2 program, by permitting state educational agencies and 
local educational agencies to use their title VI education block grant 
funds, this is probably the most flexible source of Federal taxpayer 
funding for Federal education, to use those funds for public and 
private school choice.
  But this has to be, unlike what we discussed in the last Congress, 
instead of a top-down nationally driven program from here in 
Washington, this has to be a bottom-up program. These funds could only 
be used in those States and local communities that have decided that 
they will at least experiment with school choice for those children, 
low-income children, because this funding is very targeted and it is 
means tested, only for those children attending unsafe or 
underperforming schools.
  This is a bottom-up movement designed to tell community activists and 
community leaders across the country that if they believe they should 
have more choice, more parental control and freedom in education today, 
they can use this source of Federal funding to provide scholarships to 
low-income families in low-income communities. So that is what this 
legislation is about.
  I am going to conclude my remarks. But I want to say simply again, I 
cited this poll on the House floor the other day, and I would love to 
hear my colleagues respond to it, from American Viewpoint. The public, 
when asked whether parents should be allowed more control to choose 
where their children are educated, answered overwhelmingly, two-thirds 
to one-third, 67-28, that parents should have the right to choose the 
education that is best and most appropriate for their child, the best 
learning environment. And that is what this is about. Schools exist to 
serve children, not bureaucracy.
  And lastly, from the first presidential debate in the last election 
campaign in Connecticut between the

[[Page H9944]]

President and Bob Dole, the Republican nominee for President, these are 
the President's comments: ``If you are going to have a private voucher 
program, that ought to be determined by States and localities where 
they are raising and spending most of the money.''
  That is exactly what this HELP scholarship legislation does. And I 
defy my colleagues to show me where it does not. If we are going to 
have a private voucher plan, that ought to be done, in other words, 
that ought to be determined at the local level or at the State level. 
Again, that is what this legislation does. It says to State and local 
communities, you have that option, you have that right. And in those 
communities, and we will talk hopefully more about them, like Cleveland 
and Milwaukee, in those 18 States that already have some form of school 
choice, we are saying you can use your Federal funding to expand those 
programs. And to the rest of America, we are saying, it is time now to 
give choice a chance.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
uses the term ``demeans.'' We feel it is this very bill that demeans 
public education, just as his vote to cut $137 million from Head Start 
demeans public education, just as his vote to eliminate the school 
lunch program demeans public education. You are going to give choice to 
those on school lunch, the choice to not have any lunch.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member, for yielding me the time.
  Respectfully, I want to remind the chairman who spoke a little 
earlier about the last 30 years. He was a part of a committee that 
developed bipartisan legislation in that committee over 3 years and 
Even Start was his, and it was a good bill and we all supported it. But 
for him to say this bill will fix education befuddled me. He was an 
educator, and he knows better.
  Mr. Speaker, giving people a chance or a choice is a smoke screen. 
People have the choice now. All of us can send our kids to private 
school if we want to, and low-income people are doing it every day. 
They are sacrificing to do it because they want either more discipline 
or they want a better education or a religious education for their 
children. But the taxpayers are not paying for it.
  Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is the extreme right's modern 
version of white flight from our cities. Just like we abandoned the 
poor parts of our cities when there were elements that we did not like 
and we left them to decay, this bill will leave our public schools in 
ruin in search of a panacea for just a few.
  I would ask the chairman, where are the 90 percent that are going to 
be left behind that are not going to be served by this? This bill guts 
the very basic opportunity afforded to children, the opportunity to 
learn.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people and my colleagues who have listened 
to Friday's debate on the rule heard the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs] condemn me for recognizing that Republicans are really doing the 
bidding of the conservative Christian Coalition in their advocacy for 
these ill-advised voucher proposals. Whether they know it or not, they 
are doing that.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] even went so far as to say 
that my comments were, quote, beneath me. I can assure the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] that I am the best judge of what is and 
what is not beneath me, and I never regard the truth as being beneath 
me.
  To prove my point, why do we not take a look at some of what the 
extreme right has said about public schools in America. And if my 
colleagues want to look at the chart to my right, they can see, and I 
will read it for them. Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian 
Coalition, states, ``The public education movement has also been an 
anti-Christian movement. We can change education in America if you put 
the Christian principles in and the Christian pedagogy in. In three 
years, you would totally revolutionize education in America.''

                              {time}  1730

  And Jerry Falwell, our favorite Christian:
  ``I hope to live to see the day when we won't have any public 
schools. The churches will have taken them over again, and Christians 
will be running them. What a happy day that will be.'' America Can Be 
Saved.
  Clearly, public policy is not driving Republicans to bring these 
voucher bills to the floor of the House. Rather, it is obvious to me it 
is a political debt that the majority feels it must repay. Shame on 
those who would use our children and their educational opportunity as 
an affirmation of an extreme right conservative view of the world. Let 
us consider the agenda on which these people brought this to the floor.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I stand by my earlier comments. I do not believe that Christian 
bashing ought to take place on this floor. I deplore the use of the 
race card and race baiting. I really think it is inappropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, when African-Americans of childbearing age are polled, 
86 percent support government-funded, taxpayer-funded vouchers to send 
children to the public, private or parochial school of their choice. As 
the gentleman very well knows, we already have taxpayer-funded choice 
in both preschool, child care and in higher education, and I have never 
heard him voice any objections to that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation today. Freedom is 
about making choices. This country was founded upon religious freedom, 
religious choices, because in other countries they were not given that 
right. We have tried a lot of monopolies in this country, controlled 
monopolies. Transportation, trucking, airlines, utilities and our 
package delivery system were run and controlled by monopolies. We found 
out that they were not very efficient, they did not provide very good 
cost-effective service, and we have been slowly decontrolling all of 
those and still are today.
  A few years ago the auto industry and the Big 3 were a monopoly in 
this country. They were a monopoly until in the 1980s. They did not 
take the consumer into view. Then in came the Japanese and the Germans 
and the Swedes, and the Hondas and Toyotas and the Nissans entered the 
marketplace and caused real pain in America, because they took away 
that monopoly. But what happened? Did it destroy our auto industry? No, 
it made it stronger, it made it healthier, and more dominant in the 
world today than ever.
  At least 80 percent of our schools are good. If we doubled the 
funding for education, problem schools would remain. We will spend $300 
billion for elementary and secondary education, and someone said here 
erroneously that we were going to take $2 billion away from public 
schools.
  This bill is about $310 million in a title 6 block grant. If one-
ninth of that goes to choice, that is .01 percent of the basic 
education budget. Why should our poorest who are failing schools have 
no choice? Our Congressmen have choice, our Senators have choice. The 
leaders of this country have choice because they can afford it. The 
poorest cannot.
  What are we afraid of? A very small pilot project that only helps 
States who have voted on the public record to have some choice pilots. 
If students leave a school in meaningful numbers, what will happen is 
this: The school will fix the problem. The study done by Harvard 
already shows that. If you have weak math or weak science, or a drug-
infested school or an unsafe school and students start to leave, the 
school will fix the problem.
  We will improve public education. Competition brings excellence to 
everything. Higher education works. It worked in autos, transportation, 
and

[[Page H9945]]

the package delivery system. Is the education of our children not more 
important than all the ones above? Is it not giving Americans a choice, 
and we are starting with the poorest who are trapped in schools that 
are not delivering, that are not giving them an appropriate ability to 
get a good education.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to be afraid of. I urge Members to 
support this legislation and give them the same choices that 
congressional leaders have.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I did not bash any 
Christians. I bashed two particular people for what they said.
  Number two, we have had choice from the beginning of the time this 
country started. There have always been private schools out there. In 
fact, there were private schools before there were public schools. That 
competition has never improved the public schools to this day. People 
do have choice, and poor people have choice. This is not choice for 
poor people. This is choice for rich people.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, a sound public school system is the way to 
prepare 100 percent of our children for the high-skill, high-wage jobs 
that will ensure America's leadership in our world marketplace in our 
future. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, a good, sound public education 
system prevents dependency on welfare at home.
  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 must be strengthened, not weakened.
  There is no question that the bill before us today will profoundly 
harm our public schools. This bill gives precious education dollars 
that public schools need to private and religious schools. Supporters 
of this bill say that it ensures parental choice in education, but we 
all know that private schools self-select their student body, and no 
voucher plan is going to change that. Parental choice is meaningless 
when it comes to private schools and self-selection.
  What this bill does is make it easier, by adding $40 million to the 
budget, for a chosen few to go to private schools while leaving the 
majority of American school children in public schools. This is not 
acceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak up for public education in America. 
It is not perfect, but the solution to the problems with our public 
schools is not to give vouchers to a few kids. The solution is to fix 
our schools. Put that $40 million toward improving public education so 
that all children want to be in a good public school.
  The supporters of this bill act as if vouchers are a magic bullet for 
American education, but H.R. 2746 does not help teachers or give them 
more opportunities for professional development. It creates yet another 
gap.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that Speaker Gingrich and 
his supporters have finally realized that the American people really do 
want the Federal Government to play a role, a vital role, in improving 
our schools. It was just a few months ago that the Republicans had a 
different approach. They had a big ax out here. They were ready to cut 
school lunch. They were ready to cut Head Start. They wanted to cut 
down the Department of Education and essentially terminate any Federal 
commitment to education. It was really only just a few weeks ago that 
they were right here on the floor of this House derisively referring to 
our public schools as government-owned schools.
  Today they come forward with their big solution. They want to offer 
choice. We are all for choice, and the choice that they want to offer 
public education when we read the fine print of this bill is the choice 
to do without, the choice to do without the moneys to get the job done 
to educate our children.
  It is a clever approach. They call it a help bill, but everyone who 
is familiar with the demands that are placed on our public schools 
recognize it is nothing but a hurt bill. It puts a big hurt on public 
education.
  The whole bill reminds me a little bit of the fellow who was trying 
to come to my hometown, Austin, TX. He got lost over in the piney 
woods. He walked up to a fellow at a service station over there and 
asked how to get down to the state capital. The old man scratched his 
head and said, ``I don't rightly know, but I sure wouldn't start from 
here.''
  Mr. Speaker, we sure do not want to start from here siphoning off 
money from public education. Unlike some earlier attempts, this bill is 
mighty clear. It will take money away from public education and give it 
to private parochial schools. I guarantee Members that folks like Jerry 
Falwell who says, ``I hope to live to see the day when we won't have 
any public schools, what a happy day that will be,'' they have a stake 
in this because they are going to be the beneficiaries of robbing 
public education to help the few in private education.
  I am all for private education, even though I am a graduate, as are 
my children, of the great public school system in central Texas. But 
let the parents pay for that private education, and use public 
resources not to fund Mr. Falwell, but to help our children.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, considering this as legislation that will 
give parents the right to select a private school of their choice is an 
absolute distortion. It will give a select, privileged few an 
opportunity to select the school of their choice if they can afford the 
difference between what the voucher is and the cost of the education.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we talk about the polls that show support. 
What we ought to do is look at the referendums that have been taken 
across the country where people have had an opportunity to reflect for 
an entire campaign and get educated about the idea, not just a knee-
jerk reaction to a poll. When we look at the referenda when people go 
to the polls and vote, these ideas are rejected by margins of 
approximately 3 to 1. And so we ought to look not just at knee-jerk 
reaction to the polls, we ought to look at what these bills actually 
do. I associate myself with the comments of many of the others.
  I just wanted to point out one little trickery in this bill. There is 
a provision that declares that receipt of the voucher shall not be 
considered as assistance to any school. That kind of language looks 
innocuous on its face, but it will provide that the Federal Government 
cannot enforce antidiscrimination procedures against those schools. For 
example, religious and national origin discrimination cannot be 
enforced. Racial discrimination cannot be enforced by the Federal 
Government. There would have to be individual suits, one after another. 
The Department of Justice cannot invoke the situation where they can 
withdraw funds. David Duke academies could be funded without the 
enforcement of civil rights.
  What is this language doing in the bill? It only gives exemption from 
Federal civil rights enforcement, and that is why we need to defeat the 
bill. It is under a closed rule. We cannot use an amendment to take 
that language out. We need to defeat the bill. This $50 million 
education gimmick will only take money from our public schools. We need 
to defeat the bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  The money under this legislation would flow to parents, and this bill 
targets low-income communities and low-income families in States that 
have enacted into law school choice legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] and the committee for doing something that 
is probably long overdue in this country, and that is giving people 
choices that they have yet to have. If you are a parent sending your 
kid to a public school system and you are pleased with it, good for 
you. If you are a parent sending your kids to a public school system

[[Page H9946]]

and you are worried about them, that you are afraid they are going to 
get beat up or they are going to meet a drug dealer when they go in the 
door, or that the plaster is falling down on them, or somebody at 
school really does not have their best interests, well, there is a new 
crowd in town giving you some options you never had. There are some 
friends on this side of the aisle who agree with this idea, and there 
are some that do not, but this is a debate long overdue to be had in 
this country.

                              {time}  1745

  Public schools in this country by a large extent, I think, do a great 
job. I am a public school graduate, but there are places in our country 
where nobody in this building would send their child, and we need to do 
something, and all we hear is, spend more money, spend more money, 
spend more money.
  Do my colleagues know what makes someone better? Competition makes 
them better. It will make us a better Congressman when somebody will 
run and want to take your job away. It will make the public school 
system better, where they failed, if there is somebody else in town 
that can take that child and do a quality job and give the parents the 
choice that they are lacking today.
  This is a pilot project, but this is really a debate about the status 
quo versus reform. We spent money in the name of spending money. Forty 
years later, we have got a situation that is never going to change by 
just spending money. If my colleagues want to improve anybody's state 
in life, provide some good healthy competition.
  And this finally addresses the basic problem of public education. It 
is a monopoly that does not respond to anything in some situations, and 
now there is a new act in town where parents, nobody else but mom and 
dad, get a choice that people in this room can afford but they cannot.
  And if someone is doing a good job as a public educator, they have no 
fear from this. If they are failing the parents in our communities, we 
better get better, and it is probably not good English, but we better 
get our act together, because people can go somewhere else if we have 
our way. It is long overdue.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from South 
Carolina that we say this is declaring war on public education, that 
the first shot was fired when he voted to eliminate the school lunch 
program, that the second shot was fired when he voted to cut Head Start 
by 137 million, and now, when we take 10 cents on the dollar out of 
public education and give it to private education, that is another shot 
in the war against public education.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California responded to 
some of the things I said but did not respond to when I said, shall not 
be considered assistance to any school, and I was wondering if somebody 
over there could respond to the effect of that language on special 
education students and the ability of private schools to discriminate 
on national origin and the effect of that language on the Department of 
Justice enforcing civil rights laws of the country.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say and point 
out, and I would appreciate if the gentleman would not interrupt me 
then, let me just say, if I understand Mr. Scott correctly, I think he 
is arguing that they might support this proposal if only they could 
regulate the private schools in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond; my name was 
mentioned.
  We are declaring war on people who just want to write checks as 
politicians and go home and feel good about it and still leave the 
crummy school system behind. We are declaring war on the status quo. We 
are fighting for parents. That is the war we are engaged in, and we 
choose the parents over the entrenched bureaucracy, and we are going to 
win that war.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Sawyer].
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, there are many good reasons to be skeptical 
about the bill before us, but the most important is often left out, and 
I want to say before I go any further that the gentleman from 
California and I have worked together in an attempt to do exactly what 
I am talking about.
  It is because school choice has been so widely talked about but has 
not been scientifically evaluated on a sufficient scale to draw 
concrete conclusions that I believe that the gentleman has come up with 
an improved accountability section of this bill. Evaluation is critical 
if we are to succeed or if we are to avoid monumental failure in this 
experiment of some size. Parental satisfaction is important, but it is 
wholly insufficient to measure the efficacy of choice on such a broad 
scale.
  A bill that is serious about a voucher experiment would include 
statutory requirements for a whole range of considerations, some of 
which I believe may well be included in the gentleman's bill but which 
go beyond many of those which are enumerated. And they talk about data 
on transportation problems and solutions, the effect on siblings within 
a family, the changing patterns of school enrollment by type and 
demographic characteristics. The list goes on and on.
  In short, this bill has a better evaluation component than most of 
the voucher demonstration programs that have been proposed in the last 
few years. And this is the critical point: This is not a demonstration 
program. We are finally getting closer to the kind of evaluation we 
would need if, in fact, we were doing a demonstration program, but we 
have it on the wrong vehicle.
  This is a huge and costly experiment with the lives of millions of 
children, and its emphasis on parental satisfaction matches the serious 
focus needed on cost benefits and measurable change in student 
performance. Whether or not politicians agree about the value of 
choice, the consequences fall on the lives of real children. We simply 
cannot afford to proceed without a mechanism for knowing whether we are 
right or wrong.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts], a cosponsor and one of the most prominent, 
passionate, and articulate proponents of parental choice in education 
on this legislation.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for leading the effort in fighting for what I believe is 
very important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, my father, who spent 2 days in the seventh grade, that 
is the extent of his education, he said to me once when I was about 45 
days from graduating from the University of Oklahoma, he said to me 
when I would go home sometimes on the weekend and we would sit up in 
his front room and we would solve all of America's problems according 
to the book of Watts, and this particular evening about 2 o'clock in 
the morning it was time to retire, and daddy said something to me that 
I will never forget. He said to me, as you know, Junior, he said, I 
think I want to go to college. And I said, Daddy, why go to college at 
57 years old, a double bypass heart patient, mama is diabetic, got this 
church with a pastor, got these cows, these rental properties being 
taken care of? Why did he want to go to college? He said, I would like 
to see what makes those guys fools after getting out. He said, those 
guys refuse to use common sense.
  Now, common sense would say to us, or should say to us, that we have 
got kids in America today in the inner cities that go to schools where 
they have to walk through metal detectors, that they carry guns, people 
carry guns, people carry knives, that those kids cannot learn in that 
environment.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard the debate today and we have heard 
both sides of the argument, and I think we need to separate fact from 
fiction. Now consider this. Common sense would say, or should say, to 
us if we are fighting and we are saying we are debating and we are 
saying that if we give poor parents the right to choose where they want 
to send their kids to school, that

[[Page H9947]]

they are going to choose a private school or private faith-based 
school.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that do? What does that say to us? That 
is saying to us that if we give that parent a choice, they are going to 
choose the private school or the private faith-based school. That, in 
itself, is an indictment on poor schools. We are not indicting public 
schools. Those who say that we are hurting public schools, they are the 
ones that are indicting public schools.
  And then we hear, we hear this. We say we cannot use this legislation 
for kids to go to other public schools. With these HELP scholarships, 
kids can go to other public schools, they can leave the school that is 
not working and go to a public school that is working. Or those parents 
can go to a private school or private faith-based school.
  Frederick Douglas said this: He said some people know the importance 
of education because they have it. He said, I knew the importance of 
education because I did not have it. And, Mr. Speaker, we are sending 
our kids to schools every day of their lives, we are putting them in 
schools that are failing them every day of their lives, and when they 
get out into the job market to compete for good jobs, to compete in 
this global marketplace, they will not have the reading, writing, 
arithmetic skills, computer skills to compete in a global marketplace.
  And then we say we hear, well, they are taking money away from public 
education. Let me tell my colleagues who is taking money from public 
education: The prison system. In every State in the Nation, we have an 
average of about--in the State of Oklahoma, I think we spend about 
$25,000 per year per inmate. And look at the inmates. We do not give 
them the proper reading skills, the proper writing skills, the proper 
arithmetic skills, the proper computer skills. Do my colleagues know 
where they end up? They end up in jail, they end up in prison, and then 
we spend 20 to 30 thousand a year to keep them in prison to house them. 
That is where our public education dollars are going.
  Mr. Speaker, I say let us give this legislation a chance, let us pass 
this legislation, give those poor parents who are trapped that the 
Government has mandated that they must send their kids to schools every 
day that fail them. With this legislation, those poor parents will have 
a chance to get their kids out of those schools that failed, into 
schools that worked, public schools, private schools, or private faith-
based schools. Give these parents a chance.
  Let us support this legislation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully say to the gentleman that he 
is passionate all right, but I believe he is passionately wrong, and 
when he comes to the floor and votes to cut the school lunch program, 
votes to cut Head Start by $137 million, and then comes back to the 
floor and says, today I am here to help, there is a little bit of a 
credibility problem.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana [Ms. Carson].
  (Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2746.
  Mr. Speaker, education reform can succeed only if it benefits all of 
the students and not just a select few. To stand here on the floor of 
this august body and suggest that public schools manufactured the 
social problems that have been extolled here today such as guns, such 
as drugs, such as crime, such as teenage pregnancy, is a cruel hoax. 
Let us not try to fool the American people, and let us not be fooled 
ourselves.
  The vouchers in this bill are also a cruel hoax. They do not give all 
parents a choice in education. This proposal would not provide nearly 
enough money to pay for private school tuition for all children. With 
record enrollments, crumbling buildings, and the growing threats of 
crime and drugs that our public schools did not create, public schools 
are facing greater challenges than ever before.
  Children in public schools across the land do not have the basic 
materials that they need to get an education. Diverting resources to 
private schools is not the answer. Surely we can put the money to 
better use.
  Public schoolchildren need text books, library books, and other 
fundamental tools for learning. The globalization of the economy poses 
greater challenges to our children than those ever faced by previous 
generations, including myself. Today our children need math, science, 
and training in computers to be able to get on the first rung of 
competition for the jobs of the 21st century. Public schools need the 
resources to meet these challenges.
  I urge in the strongest possible terms that H.R. 2746 be defeated.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the 
gentleman from Texas talked about what happened. It is interesting that 
in the school lunch program we put $200 million more in our program 
than the President offered in his. So that is amazing to me how that is 
a cut. And, secondly, this is one of the same people that said we were 
gutting Medicare to give tax breaks to the wealthy, one of the same 
people that said we could not cut taxes and balance the budget at the 
same time when we have done all those things. So, you know, let us 
separate the facts from the fiction and let us talk about the facts 
today.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Paul].
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I have 
been on the education committee now for 10 months, and I have not yet 
heard any Member stand up and brag about the public school system. 
Everybody seems to be critical of the system, and everybody has 
suggestions on what we can do.
  I think the problem with the school system has definitely gotten 
worse since we have gained control of the public school system at the 
national level. There is pretty good evidence to this, and I think a 
new program and new expenditures up here will not do the trick. This 
program, however, does not fall into that category.
  I believe that the States ought to have the right to set up one of 
these programs where scholarships can be offered. This is quite a bit 
different than mandating and dictating a brand new program and new 
appropriations. So I think this is a step in the right direction.
  We should not be fearful of choice; we should not be fearful of 
competition. If we are serious about education, I think we should get 
beyond equating good education with the school lunch program. I cannot 
quite see the analogy of saying a good lunch is equivalent to good 
education.

                              {time}  1800

  But, more Federal programs will not solve the problem, and I believe 
very sincerely that if we allow some choice and if we allow some 
competition, we might see some improvement.
  I do not believe this program is going to solve the problem of our 
educational system. We have serious structural problems. Some day we 
will have to look at the history of the public school system and look 
to the time when the public schools worked much better with local 
control and local financing.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for 
H.R. 2746, the Helping Empower Low-Income Parents [HELP] Scholarships 
Amendments of 1997. The HELP Act allows States to use title VI funds 
for school voucher programs if the State has a voucher law. Nothing in 
this bill forces states to adapt a voucher program, states without 
voucher programs will not lose a penny of federal funds. HELP does not 
create a new federal program, nor does it provide a justification for 
an increase in federal education funds. Furthermore, this bill 
addresses the legitimate concerns that federally funded voucher 
programs will lead to state regulations of private schools by 
explicitly stating that receipt of these funds cannot be used as a 
reason for force religious schools to alter their curriculum, or force 
private schools to change their admission requirements. Additionally, 
participating private schools must only be in compliance with state 
regulations in effect one year prior to passage of the HELP Act.
  Under 10th amendment to the Constitution, the question of whether or 
not to fund private-school voucher programs is a left solely to the

[[Page H9948]]

state and localities. However, congressional activism has undermined 
state and local control of education as the federal education 
bureaucracy has grown increasingly powerful. Thus, many states now feel 
compelled to obey federal dictates and only engage in those education 
policies for which they can receive federal funds.
  Individual states, localities and, in many cases, even private 
citizens cannot afford to support education programs without financial 
help from the federal government because of the oppressive tax burden 
imposed on the American people by this Congress! Congress then 
``returns'' the money (minus a hefty federal ``administrative'' fee) to 
state governments and the American people to spend on federally 
approved purposes.
  While the very existence of federal education programs and funding is 
an insult to the Constitution, and while the most effective education 
reform to entirely defund the federal education bureaucracy and return 
education funding to America's parents through deep tax credits and tax 
cuts, the more options the federal government provides states, 
localities, and individuals in the use of federal education dollars the 
better. Mr. Speaker, authority for funding education belongs to the 
people and the states. We in Congress have no legal or moral 
justification for denying the people the right to pursue any education 
reform they believe will help America's children--whether it is 
vouchers, charter schools, or statewide testing.
  Mr. Speaker, my long-term goal remains the restoration of limited, 
constitutional government in all areas, including education. Until that 
goal is achieved, I will support measures, such as the one now before 
us, to give the states and the people as much control as possible over 
education dollars. After all, in the words of the pledge to abolish the 
IRS many of us signed last week, it is their money, not ours. 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
H.R. 2746, the Helping Empower Low-Income Parents [HELP] Scholarships 
Amendments of 1997.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  These are not scholarships. These are vouchers, and vouchers are not 
the way to improve the public school system.
  In the first place, I question the constitutionality of using Federal 
dollars for private and parochial schools. But putting that question 
aside, this proposal will not be for all low-income students, and if it 
were for all low-income students, we would be creating a new 
entitlement, and I do not quite know what my friends on this side of 
the aisle are doing in creating this new program. But, it also opens 
the question of possible discrimination, and that this discrimination 
would be providing vouchers to some students, but not all.
  Now, one does not have to be a lawyer with a law degree or a rocket 
scientist to predict that if this is passed, there will be with 
certainty a lawsuit that will be filed claiming discrimination, and 
that will be a giant step towards an entitlement.
  However, put that aside too. The most important issue is what it is 
going to do to the public school system. Now, as a former school board 
member, I have some experience in these matters, and I want to tell my 
colleagues that it will greatly reduce support of the public schools, 
both urban and suburban, and ultimately, these vouchers will result in 
gutting the public school system, because it will be sending more and 
more of scarce financial resources out of the public system and into 
the private school system. It will be reducing financial support for 
the majority of students, the vast majority, and support a select few.
  Gutting the public school system will not help those students who 
remain behind. What we need to do is to improve the system and improve 
the quality of standards for all students, not this select few.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the HELP Scholarship Act. This 
is just another way of saying these are not scholarships, these are 
vouchers, and vouchers are not the way to improve our education system.
  In the first place, I question the constitutionality of whether 
Federal dollars can be used for private and parochial schools. The 
Constitution provides for a division between church and State, and this 
proposal will interfere with that division. Such proposals have been 
found unconstitutional when they have not been provided to all low-
income students, or when the tuition grant program has been used 
primarily to assist children in attending schools which are religiously 
affiliated.
  This proposal will not be for all low-income students, and if it were 
to be provided for all low-income students then it would be an 
entitlement. And we do not need any more entitlements.
  Why would we, as a Republican Party, be moving toward an entitlement. 
This is a problem of possible claims of discrimination--that is 
discrimination in providing some students with vouchers. This also 
moves us toward creating an entitlement.
  How will it be decided which students will be provided with the 
vouchers? Doesn't this discriminate against the other students who are 
not given vouchers? It does not take a law degree or a rocket scientist 
to predict with certainty that a lawsuit will be filed claiming 
discrimination and that will be a giant step toward the entitlement.
  Most important and as a former school board member with some 
experience in these matters, it will force regionalization of the 
public school system, greatly reduce support of the public schools, 
both urban and suburban, and ultimately these vouchers will result in 
gutting the public school system--because it will be sending more and 
more of our scarce financial resources out of the public system and 
into the private system. It will be reducing financial support for the 
vast majority to support a select few.
  As a former teacher and school board member in my home community, I 
have always supported our public school system. I believe that our 
schools are best prepared to meet the educational needs of our youth 
when decisions about our school are made by that local community.
  Gutting the public school system will not help those students who 
remain behind in the public school system. What we need to do is 
improve the system, and improve the quality and standards for all the 
students, not a select few.
  It is also disturbing that these funds will be taken from title VI 
dollars. These funds are to be used for instructional materials, 
library materials, magnet schools, literacy programs, gifted and 
talented programs, dropout assistance, and other school reform 
activities. If school choice becomes an allowable use of funds, then 
these activities will not receive the funding and attention that they 
deserve.
  This is not the way to improve our schools.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], and all of those who would say 
``discrimination,'' the ultimate discrimination, the ultimate economic 
and racial discrimination, is to keep these poor kids, these poor black 
kids, these poor white kids, these poor kids in schools that do not 
work, and the government mandates to those parents they must send their 
kids to those schools. It is the ultimate discrimination to do this to 
these poor kids.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon], another longtime champion of parental choice in 
education.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding 
me this time. I just want to respond a little bit further to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. There has been a lot of 
talk about hurting public schools and that our agenda should be helping 
public schools.
  I think our agenda really should be helping kids get a good 
education, and saving and protecting public schools sometimes is 
involved in that, but sometimes these public schools are so bad that 
they should be closed down, and I am really pleased to see this bill 
come to the floor. I worked with the gentleman from California last 
session on trying to get a school choice bill to the floor.
  One of the reasons why I am so interested in this issue is one of the 
things I noticed when I got out of the Army and I went into private 
practice is that people with money send their kids to the schools of 
their choice, but poor people and people who are disadvantaged cannot 
do that. They are locked in a system, frequently a system that is 
failing. Some of our public schools are great, but some of them are 
failing miserably, and every time we try to talk about school choice, 
the same group of people get up and say, no, no, no, we cannot have 
school choice.
  All we have here is a modest bill to try it. Let me tell my 
colleagues something. The American people support

[[Page H9949]]

this, they want to see this. Look at this chart here. All Americans, 82 
percent; black Americans, 84 percent; whites, 83 percent; Democrats, 81 
percent; Republicans, 86 percent; Independents, 81 percent. But every 
time we try to do this much school choice in this body, the same 
naysayers get up and say it is going to destroy public education.
  My desire is not to protect public education, but to provide kids in 
America better education, particularly those kids who are locked into 
failing schools, schools that are frequently riddled with drugs, where 
they are not getting an education, where they are coming out with a 
diploma and they cannot read. We are just trying to give some of those 
parents the ability to send their kids to a decent school, the ability 
that rich people have had for years.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition 
to this bill, which is cleverly disguised and masquerades to help 
empower low-income families to send their children to the best public 
or private schools.
  This is nothing more than a third in a series of voucher bills. 
However, the HELP Scholarship Act is different. This is not a back-
door, covert attempt to dismantle public education. This is an all-out, 
overt, frontal assault to help undermine and destroy public schools.
  This bill reminds one of Dracula in that it seeks to suck the blood 
out of public education. Currently, 90 percent of America's children 
benefit from public schools. This bill provides no funds to improve 
public schools, which are in dire need of repair, teacher training, and 
curriculum development. This bill is anti-public education.
  I urge that we reject it and say no. Halloween was last week, 
Halloween was last week. This bill is trick or treat, with more tricks 
than treats.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair as to how much 
time is remaining. I believe that the other side controls substantially 
more time than we do at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. McCollum]. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] has 31 and three-quarter minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] has 38 and one-quarter minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise very simply to indicate that this 
is not about choice, this is a bill about private school vouchers. This 
is an extension of a debate that we had in the Washington, D.C. budget 
earlier this year when the roofs are falling down in the D.C. schools 
and rather than fix the roof, the proposal was put forward to allow 
2000 children out of 78,000 children to be able to leave the schools 
with private vouchers.
  We are committed to a strong public school system investing in 
technology for our children, making sure they can read and write, and 
that they are qualifying for the jobs of the future, every child, every 
neighborhood. This proposal allows a few children to take a 
disproportionate amount of dollars out of the public schools to allow 
for private school vouchers. It is the wrong way to go.
  I would very much like it if we took all of our energies together and 
focused them in the right direction, which is making sure every single 
child in America gets a quality education.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Sanchez].
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I guess I hold a distinction in this 
Congress. I say to my colleagues, I am a Head Start child, a public 
school kid, a Pell Grant recipient.
  I would say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], I think some 
Federal programs do work for our children, and I would say to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts], I guess when I started out, I 
would be one of those poor minority students the gentleman professes to 
be so concerned about.
  But, Mr. Speaker, today I rise against the so-called HELP Scholarship 
Act. Let us face it. This bill is not talking about scholarships, it is 
talking about vouchers, and that is why this bill bypassed our 
committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for any 
consideration, and it is now on the floor under a gag rule.
  It saddens me that during a time when our public schools are facing 
their most challenging times, we are encouraging American people to 
turn to private schools to teach their children. Ninety percent of all 
of the children in America go to public schools, and the numbers 
increase every day.
  Let that be the focus of our education agenda: How to improve 
America's public education system.
  For example, in Orange County, all the kindergarten through 12 
schools in my district are overcrowded. They have resorted to year-
round classes, portable classrooms, just to deal with things in the 
classroom, and they still maintain high academic standards. Voucher 
programs, at most, would help only a few students, and those who do use 
these vouchers will not even be given civil rights protection under the 
school admissions process. What kind of school choice is that?
  School construction is an issue that deserves the attention of this 
Congress, not vouchers. That is why I have introduced legislation that 
will offer interest-free bonds to school districts to help them finance 
these new school needs, the school construction needs that they have. 
Let us do what is right for America's children. Let us make sure that 
quality exists for everybody in our schools. Please vote against H.R. 
2746.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, 
[Mr. Green].
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to see H.R. 2746 here again 
today. These are from the same folks who a few weeks ago characterized 
government-owned schools as a communist legacy. So now we have H.R. 
2746 here to talk about how we are really going to educate children.
  Our Nation has the ability to provide the highest quality of public 
education in the world, but the question remains, who will receive this 
education? My Republican colleagues' answer is with the HELP 
Scholarship Act, again, a voucher program.
  The HELP Scholarship Act is a school voucher program that is intended 
to do nothing but harm public education because it is taking money out 
of what should be going to public education. This bill does nothing for 
the Nation's 50 million students who attend public schools.
  We are not defending public education here on the floor today by 
opposing this bill. We are defending those 50 million children who are 
in public education and need more resources, but they are taking away 
even current resources, money that should be used to improve the public 
schools and instead will go to a small number of students to pay for 
private and parochial schools. Private and parochial schools are great, 
but they should not have public funds to do it.
  This bill is not only unfair to those 50 million children who will 
not be able to participate, but I consider public education is an 
American legacy, not a communist legacy. The real challenge lies in not 
creating small privileges for a small number of students, but instead 
building a strong public education system that will provide for those 
50 million students instead of taking it away. I believe the HELP 
Scholarship Act does not improve public education in America, but it 
threatens the public education of those 50 million children we are 
defending.
  There is no evidence to suggest that vouchers will lead to improved 
public education performance for all children. In fact, the voucher 
programs drain funds earmarked for improving public schools and directs 
them to private schools. The Republican voucher program fails to 
address the needs of public education and should be defeated tonight. 
The future of our children is too important to gamble on an untried and 
unrealistic proposal.
  Again, this is a bill in response to the same problem that we had a 
few weeks ago when they were calling public education a communist 
legacy by one of our colleagues from Colorado. This is

[[Page H9950]]

their answer to solutions in the public schools. Let us work to make 
public schools better, not take funds away.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Sanchez] that she proves my point exactly. Good 
schools should not be threatened by what we are doing. Bad schools. She 
went to a good public school. So did I. It is the bad public schools 
that we are saying, let us give those poor parents a chance to take 
those kids out of those bad public schools.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note that I believe what the education 
establishment and those here who are beholden to them really fear is 
that competition threatens their monopoly of financial control.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Granger].
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, as a former public school teacher, I rise 
in strong support of the HELP Scholarship Act. I have always believed 
that when you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Today this Congress will 
pass yet another part of a winning strategy for the future.
  Today all children are not well-served by our schools. Sixty percent 
of all graduating seniors in high school cannot read on a 12th-grade 
level. As a whole, today's students score 60 points lower on the SATs 
than their parents did. Clearly there is much work to be done as we 
look for ways to improve our schools.
  While the work of making our schools great again is in many ways 
difficult, it is in no way impossible. Piece by piece, one school and 
one child at a time, we can give our Nation the kind of education 
system it deserves, and we can give our children the kind of education 
their parents have a right to expect.
  Today we have a chance to support the HELP Scholarship Act. This 
legislation will provide scholarships to low-income families to send 
their children to the school of their choice. It has often been said 
that the greatness of a Nation is measured by how it treats the most 
vulnerable and the less fortunate. The HELP Scholarship Act will help 
those who need our help the most, families who earn less than 185 
percent of the poverty level.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-
called HELP Scholarship plan. This plan is not about helping the 
majority of students in America. This is just the latest attack on 
public schools by the opponents of public education.
  Speaker Gingrich and the radical Republican right have a plan to 
dismantle public education, abolish the Department of Education, cut 
the school lunch program, cut funding for safe- and drug-free schools, 
for teacher training, for Head Start.
  Just 2 weeks ago the Republican opponents of public education 
supported a voucher scheme that would drain millions of public 
education dollars in our Nation's capital and give it to just 3 percent 
of students to attend private and religious schools. But taking money 
out of public schools in the District of Columbia was just the 
beginning.
  Today we consider a plan that would drain resources from every public 
school in every neighborhood and every city and town in America. This 
so-called HELP Scholarship scheme does nothing to help public schools. 
It is about draining resources from public schools to help private and 
religious schools; help the few, deprive the many. This is the 
Republican plan.
  Mr. Speaker, 50 million students in America attend public schools. 
Nine out of 10 students attend public schools. We as a society know 
that educational opportunity is good for all. It was Thomas Jefferson 
who said, education is the cornerstone of our democracy. That is why 
Democrats support investing in our public schools, rebuilding our 
crumbling school buildings, and giving every child in America a solid 
foundation through public education.
  We should be building our public schools, building them up, not 
tearing them down. We should be working together to improve our public 
schools, not giving up on them and selling them down the river.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support public education 
in America, support education for all of our children. Oppose the 
Republican HELP Scholarship scheme. The scholarship is no help at all. 
These are really hurt scholarships. They hurt our public schools, and 
they hurt the overwhelming majority of our children. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat this bill. It does not help anyone. It does not 
help our children. It hurts our children, and it hurts our public 
schools.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the last speaker and point out 
that we are not saying on this side that competition and choice is a 
panacea. I wish people would not view this or try to portray this as 
some sort of attack on the public schools. I say that as the parent of 
a child who is in public school, because I always remember my most 
important title is not Congressman, it is dad.
  But we had Alveda King testify. She is a highly respected civil 
rights advocate, the niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King. She 
testified, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] and 
others, before our subcommittee. She said, ``If you have a boat going 
down, and there are 10 children on it, and you can only save 4, isn't 
it better to save the 4 than to let all 10 drown?"
  What we are saying is our public school boat is in danger of sinking, 
that we are failing to serve too many children, and as a country we 
cannot afford to lose another generation of urban schoolchildren.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Forbes].
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a moment under this 
majestic dome that marks the world's greatest democracy and the hope 
that is this Nation, it is now. Look at every urban center in America, 
and we will see repeated the scenario where we have relegated the most 
vulnerable children among us to a lifetime of poverty and bad 
education.
  I am a product of the public schools and a public college, and 
proudly so, and I celebrate those good teachers and good parents that 
made it possible for me to get the education that I did. But what is 
wrong with stepping forward for the children, the most vulnerable 
children, who are being denied a quality education because we are 
refusing to address the problems of our urban schools?
  This is a solution long in the making. I commend the authors of this 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this matter of choice 
for our children. The parents of these children in every urban center 
of America are crying out for this kind of a solution. This is the 
right way to go. I would ask my friends who oppose this to reconsider 
their position. I ask them, what is the alternative?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we all have a great concern 
for our children, but it concerns me that the gentleman that just spoke 
to the American people to express his concern for the plight of poor 
children, it seems hard to believe, since in his last vote he voted 
against Head Start. I think that should seriously raise doubt of the 
concern that has been expressed.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], he invoked the name of Martin Luther King, 
Junior, and his niece, Alveda King Bill. I knew Martin Luther King, 
Junior. He was my mentor, my friend, and my leader. If he were alive 
today, he would be ashamed of what his niece did and said.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas 
[Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think the real question has

[[Page H9951]]

to be, how do we go forward in helping the children of America? The 
real driving force behind this Republican proposal on vouchers is not 
parents who want a better education for their children, but the likes 
of Jerry Falwell, who says, ``I hope to live to see the day when we 
won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over 
again, and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will 
be.''
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in the first amendment, I believe in 
Christianity, the freedom of religion and I believe in all Americans. 
However, I also believe in public school education. This is what we 
should be doing: early childhood development; basics by 6; well-trained 
teachers; well-equipped classrooms; relief from crumbling and 
overcrowded schools; support for local plans to review neighborhood 
public schools; efficient and coordinated use of resources; parental 
choice, like charter schools.
  That should be the message for public schools and those who support 
our children, not a denial of civil rights, as these vouchers will do, 
to parents and children; not where the parents will be denied admission 
by private schools when they come with their vouchers. We need a real 
plan for our public schools, not a system that destroys them. I support 
public schools. I ask my colleagues to do so as well by voting against 
the voucher bill which destroys public schools.
  The primary point of concern, for myself, and many other members of 
this body in regards 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 D.C. students left 
behind? Can this plan be a solution, I would assert that it can 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 lipservice, 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 the public mandate from 
the Congress, actually, 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.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would go back to what the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Lewis] said. We will let Ms. King's words speak for themselves. She is 
not only a highly respected civil rights advocate, but she is also a 
former public and private schoolteacher.
  Here is what she said in testimony before our committee: ``It has 
been demonstrated that when you implement a choice program, including 
vouchers, that you empower the parents, the system improves, the 
schools begin to compete, and hope arises.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh], a member of the committee.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Flake-Watts bill, 
and want the American people and my colleagues to know that this bill 
attacks one of the root causes of discrimination and poverty in America 
and empowers families who are living in troubled communities.
  Let me tell Members what it meant in the State of Indiana. The other 
day I met a remarkable lady named Barbara Lewis. Barbara is an African-
American and lives in the inner city of Indianapolis. She struggles to 
raise her three boys, and Barbara has decided to become a leader in our 
community. She is president of a new grass-roots organization called 
FORCE, Families Organized for Real Choice in Education.
  A few years ago her son Alphonso had the opportunity to escape one of 
these terrible inner-city schools that was failing to educate him, and 
through a private scholarship Alphonso was able to attend Holy Cross 
Catholic school. This opportunity enabled Alphonso to get into a better 
school, but it was his own intellectual abilities and hard work that 
put him on the honor roll, it was his own athletic abilities that made 
him stand out on the football team, and his own leadership that led his 
classmates to elect him to the student council. Now Barbara is 
energized, and she wants to give every inner-city kid the same chance 
that her son Alphonso had.
  I could tell Members about studies that show how minority students do 
much better in these private schools, or how 43 of our Nation's 
Governors are supporting school choice. But Alphonso's success story 
speaks for itself, and his real-life experiences tell us of the merits 
of this.
  I appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look at 
the facts and cut through the rhetoric. I know there is strong pressure 
from the interest groups and the establishment who want to keep the 
status quo.
  I know my colleagues are great believers in the public school system, 
as am I. I am a product of that system. But it is not a choice between 
public schools and private schools. The choice here is between 
preserving the failed status quo or moving forward and giving poor 
inner-city kids a hope for a better education. Vote for the Watts-Flake 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the author Victor Hugo once wrote, ``There is one thing 
stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose 
time has come.''
  The time has come to allow parents the choice of selecting schools 
for their children. Parents across the country--especially in inner 
cities--demand this choice to give their kids the chance to grow and 
succeed.
  I want Hoosier parents to have this choice. At the K-12 level, 
Indiana spends an average of $5,666 per student per year. Yet 
performance declines as the student progresses through the public 
school system.
  For instance, in 1996, Indiana's 4th graders took the National 
Assessment of Education Progress math exam. They placed fourth out of 
43 states that participated in the exam. Very good.
  However, Indiana's 8th graders ranked only 17th out of 43 states.
  On Advanced Placement exams, Indiana ranked last in comparison to 
other states and the District of Columbia in terms of the percentage of 
students who are in the top half.
  Clearly, more money is not the answer. We need to rethink our whole 
approach to elementary and secondary education.
  I ask my colleagues, is the status quo, which is discriminating 
against poor, and which is letting our children down, so important that 
we are willing to sacrifice the hopes and aspirations of thousands of 
children, for the sake of the special interest unions, not for the sake 
of our children.
  Look at what President Clinton said--``People need to know they can 
walk away from bad schools. Choice changes . . .''
  Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman made the following statement on the 
floor during the D.C. appropriations bill, ``Voting against choice is 
about the equivalent of voting against Pell grants or the GI bill or 
child care programs.'' I couldn't agree more.
  I appeal to everyone in this House to break the chains of the special 
interests! Break free and let the poor inner city children like 
Alphonso have the same opportunity as the wealthiest citizens in this 
country, the same opportunity for us that the President and his family 
have had.
  Please give poor, underprivileged parents a real choice. For the sake 
of the children vote for the Watts-Flake HELP scholarship bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I believe the only pressure

[[Page H9952]]

from the American people, I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, 
is the American people's surprise about his new concern for the poor, 
since he voted against Head Start, and he voted to eliminate school 
lunch programs that would help our children learn and help our children 
be better off as they seek to be educated in this country.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting debate. I can 
remember many, many, many years ago in public school, and if we had the 
thinking of my colleagues over there at that particular period of time, 
we would not have been inoculated for measles, smallpox, we would not 
have gotten examined from the health nurse every year.
  I have yet to find out how these vouchers are going to be 
administered. I am told that they are going to come in a block grant to 
the States. What makes us think that States are not a bureaucracy, just 
the same as the Federal Government? We are going to say to a poor 
parent, as they have to come and say, hey, I want one of them vouchers, 
they will say, okay, we are going to get you a voucher, but here is how 
much it is. Well, I cannot take my kid to a private school because it 
is way across town. I do not have a car. I am a single parent. Well, we 
will mark you off, and we will go to the next one, somebody that has.
  This is an attack on the public school system, Mr. Speaker. I say to 
the Members on the other side, your record is not good. Folks that 
count catsup as a vegetable, vote against Head Start and all of these 
things, your record is just not good.

                              {time}  1830

  You have no credibility in education. It has always been that way. 
You were not for education when we wanted to have student loans for 
people years ago before some of you were born. When my dad wanted to go 
to college, you wanted to send kids to school, you did not have a 
program. You did not support any program. You did not support 
education. It is inherent with you. You do not have a good record on 
education. I am not being vicious. It is just the truth.
  As Harry Truman said, to give them hell, you just tell the truth and 
it sounds like you are giving them hell.
  But this is an attack on the public school system. Make no mistake 
about it. It is going to take millions of dollars out of the public 
school system and deny a lot of those people you are talking about from 
getting any chance for a public education. It is a fallacy, it is a 
rip-off, and it is a fraud.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to observe the 
gentleman from North Carolina is absolutely right. After 40 years of 
single-party control in the House of Representatives, our inner city 
schools in America are in great shape.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Boehner], chairman of the House Republican Conference.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the debate this 
evening. I find it ironic that the debate is centering around whether 
this is for public schools, against public schools, whether it is for 
private schools. This has nothing to do with support for one school 
system or another.
  What this HELP scholarship will do is to empower parents, parents and 
local communities, to take greater control over the education of their 
children. We spend far too much time in this body worrying about 
systems and worrying about a process instead of worrying about how we 
can help parents ensure that their child gets a better education. This 
bill tonight will do that for some people in America who do not have 
choice.
  If you have got money, you have all the school choice you would want, 
but if you are poor and you are locked into an inner city school, you 
have no choice.
  How long is it going to be before those of us in this body begin to 
take seriously the problems that we have in inner city schools in this 
country? How can we look one day longer at the system we have created 
that is denying those children a shot at the American dream? This helps 
them out of it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I still maintain that it is 
the children that we should be concerned about. I would say to the 
gentleman who just spoke that the American people would find his 
concern for the plight of poor children in public education hard to 
believe since he voted against Head Start and against free lunches for 
our children so that they could learn.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri for yielding me the time.
  This proposal just violates the common sense test. It would be one 
thing for the majority party to offer scholarships, once the public 
education system was fully funded, once we fully funded Head Start, 
once we reduced the teacher/pupil ratio, once we went about getting the 
$100 billion that the GAO says is needed to fix our public school 
education system. But in the absence, in the absence of investing those 
needed dollars in our public education system, vouchers represent a 
Band-Aid approach.
  Just think of it. Let us sprinkle a few vouchers out there, capture 
this kind of choice thing, make it sound all attractive, but what we 
are really doing is leaving a very unattractive system still in place. 
We know it needs work, but we are not doing anything to invest the 
dollars that are needed to make it work. We are saying, we will make it 
work for those who can get a voucher.
  All I would ask is, what does that leave the people who cannot get a 
voucher? Where is the guarantee for every child?
  I mean, I have heard this voucher argument a million times by you 
people. You talked about it with public housing. Guess what? People are 
going to want to take vouchers when you people cut operation and 
maintenance of our housing system.
  There is no question our housing system is going to crumble and 
people are going to want a way out when you do not invest in it. That 
was your answer to the public housing problem, give people vouchers, do 
not fix the problem, just give them vouchers. Mr. Speaker, that 
represents a cut-and-run approach. It does not represent a meeting-the-
problem-head-on approach.
  The Democratic agenda for first class public schools is about meeting 
the agenda head on, addressing the problem that is out there head on, 
not giving this kind of voucher to whoever can be lucky enough to get a 
voucher and leaving all the rest of the kids in the dust.
  Just think about it. What happens to the kids? We are not worried 
about the kids who can get into the private system or who can get a car 
to get to a better school, move to a better neighborhood. We are 
worried about the kids who are stuck. That is who we need to improve, 
their opportunities. Vouchers do nothing of the sort. They do not 
guarantee the child that is in the poor neighborhood, that cannot get 
out of the neighborhood, that is stuck with the crumbling school, an 
opportunity to leave that environment and get a better school system 
because you have failed to invest in the school system. You are just 
cutting and running.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the 
gentleman who just spoke, that was a very, very partisan, cynical 
comment.
  Do not take my word for it. Here are 150 letters from parents whose 
children have participated in the Cleveland voucher program. They are 
all African American. They are all low income. And if the gentleman 
would take the time to familiarize himself with that program or the 
Milwaukee program, if he would listen to parents, he might change his 
view.
  I am just going to cite a couple comments.
  I appreciate the scholarship program my grandson is participating in. 
I feel he is getting a better education. Esther Carter.
  The voucher program is a wonderful program for our children and the 
future of our children. Yvette Jackson.

[[Page H9953]]

  I hope to see this and many more programs like this succeed in the 
very near future. My daughter and my family are truly blessed. Yolanda 
Pearcy.
  It is a crying shame that when we had a field hearing in Cleveland 
there was not a Democratic Member of the House of Representatives who 
could take the time to join us in that field hearing and to participate 
and to listen to parents.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Let us take a look at exactly what this bill does. What this bill 
does is, it amends title VI of the education block grant program to 
allow States and localities, if they choose, if they choose, they are 
not required to do anything, but if they believe it is the most 
appropriate thing and the most appropriate effort for their local 
community to improve schools, they may use these block grants for 
voluntary public, private, and parental choice programs.
  Other things that they can use title VI for are professional 
development, curriculum development, technology and computers, magnet 
schools. All this says is, if you and your community and your State 
believe this is what you want to do to help kids in your community, we 
are going to let you do it.
  Why do we think that this is the right approach? Over the last 12 
months, we have gone to Milwaukee; New York; Chicago; California; 
Phoenix; Wilmington, Delaware; Milledgeville, Georgia; Cincinnati, 
Ohio; Louisville; Little Rock, Arkansas; Cleveland; Muskegon, Michigan; 
Des Moines. We have gone to these 13 different States, 14, 15 different 
field hearings, and in every field hearing we have heard exciting 
innovations at the local level about what people are trying to do to 
solve the education problems in their communities.
  In Milwaukee, in Cleveland, they have said, we really think a 
scholarship program and a scholarship effort is what is needed in our 
community. And wonderful things are happening. Is it a silver bullet? 
Is it going to work everywhere? No. But in these communities, it is 
these people have decided and they are having some wonderful success, 
and they want to be able to build off of that. We should let other 
States and other communities have the same opportunity. We need to give 
these other people and other States the opportunity to experiment to 
see whether this is one of those tools that will move this country 
forward.
  The focus is not on the system, but the people in these local 
communities are focused on the children because it is local people 
making decisions for their children. And my colleagues should listen to 
the parents. It is not only the letters that we get but the testimony 
that we get from parents coming in saying, help us and empower us to 
save our kids, and give us the control and the flexibility to do what 
we want to do in this community and not do what Washington is forcing 
us to do.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish the gentleman who had 
just spoken, with all the passion that he has expressed, had the same 
kind of passion when he voted against Head Start and school lunches. I 
hope the American people realize, in his now pretended concern for the 
plight of the poor, that he voted against Head Start and voted against 
school lunches which help our children be better prepared to learn.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  The previous speaker stated it right. He said if the States choose, 
but they are not required to do anything. That is absolutely right in 
terms of civil rights. If they choose to enforce the civil rights 
provision, they may, but they probably will not.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority that came into power 
3 years ago insisting that the Department of Education be abolished, 
eliminated, has no validity, no credibility in this discussion. This is 
another cynical ploy, cynical partisan ploy to destroy public 
education, public school education.
  These same advocates and sponsors of vouchers, I would like for them 
to tell me: In your district, have you gone to your own local school 
boards and proposed vouchers? What is their reaction? Do you have poor 
children in your districts? Most of you do. You get title I funds. They 
are spread all across the whole country so there are some poor children 
in your district. There are certainly middle-class families, who also 
send their children to private schools and would like to have the 
relief provided by funds vouchers.
  Have you discussed it with your school boards? And what is their 
reaction? Is it popular? Is this something you want to jam down only 
the throats of the African Americans in the inner cities and use them 
as guinea pigs in an experiment which has no validity in your own 
district?
  Do you know that all the States, in 1997, where legislation was 
introduced for vouchers, it did not pass, it failed. Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia; there 
were 24 States that introduced legislation for vouchers, and it did not 
pass in a single State. So is it the American people who want vouchers 
or is it something you want to impose from Washington?
  You have used your power to try to impose it in Washington, DC. The 
people of Washington, DC., had a referendum. They said they did not 
want vouchers, they want charter schools. But you want to force it down 
their throats. You are cynically refusing to support programs that 
would benefit poor people.
  Your majority in two sessions voted against Goals 2000. When you 
failed to eliminate Goals 2000 in a regular format, you went through 
the back door of the Committee on Appropriations and you eliminated 
opportunity-to-learn standards. Nothing is more significant for poor 
children in America than the opportunity-to-learn standards, which deal 
with just what I am saying, opportunity-to-learn.
  If you are going to be able to learn, you need a decent building, so 
school construction is what we should be discussing here. You need 
trained teachers. We should be discussing training teachers. We should 
be discussing how to introduce the best educational technology into the 
poorest schools.
  We are not discussing the things that are significant because you 
have the time preoccupied with a diversionary discussion of vouchers. 
You refused to pass all of the President's Technology Challenge Fund; 
you cut funds for that. And you denied low-income students the 
opportunity to continue their education by voting to cut student loans 
by $10.1 billion in fiscal year 1996. Whenever low-income programs are 
introduced, whenever they are introduced on this floor, the same 
Members who are advocating vouchers for a handful of poor children are 
the Members who vote those programs down.
  Follow Mayor Giuliani. What he did in New York is, he went to the 
private sector. You want vouchers, you want to experiment with 
vouchers; go to the private sector, they can help a handful of 
children, instead of threatening to destroy the entire system.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. OWENS. What happens is that the Giuliani program is significant 
in that it says exactly what vouchers can do. There were 91,000 
youngsters who had no place to sit when school opened in 1996. They 
took 1,000 of the 91,000 and they found a voucher program for them, 
they found scholarships for them. They are going to take care of 1,000 
children.
  In the meantime, what are they saying to the other 90,000? You cannot 
deal with poor people and the problems of poor people in our inner 
cities unless you move systematically to change the larger system. 
Charter schools could have an impact on that system. It could 
accomplish some of the things they want to accomplish.
  Vouchers are a diversion. They are running away from the 
responsibility, the need to appropriate more money for construction, 
more money for

[[Page H9954]]

teacher training, more money for books and supplies. They are running 
away from the responsibility and they are diverting the attention of 
the American people with vouchers.
  In their own communities, voucher advocates refuse to go and ask for 
a referendum and ask for focus groups and campaign on it. It will be 
very unpopular, I assure you, if they dare to push voucher programs in 
their own communities.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] that, speaking 
of unpopular, how would he respond to Wisconsin State Senator Polly 
Williams, who spearheaded the choice program in Milwaukee City schools 
and who just happens to be an African-American? How would he respond to 
Fannie Lewis, the 80-year-old Cleveland City Councilwoman, who helped 
spearhead the school choice program there and who happens to be an 
African-American? Those are local people.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from California yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield. I attempted to respond to 
his question, but it proved to be purely rhetorical and not 
meritorious.
  I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Scott], whom I very much respect, please put in the 
mix here, in the overall equation, the civil rights of parents, the 
civil rights of parents to select the education that is appropriate for 
their child, to be able to give their child the kind of future 
opportunity that every parent wants for their child.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Talent], the primary author of this legislation, my cosponsor.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs] for yielding me the time.
  I am reminded that, in the midst of all this heat and the very little 
light, and the chairman of the committee predicted it and I think he 
was right in doing that, we are dealing with an issue that really 
matters to real people, to the millions of kids and their parents in 
low-income neighborhoods who are trapped in schools, trapped in 
schools, where they do not learn and where they are not safe.
  The issue here, Mr. Speaker, is are we going to help these kids or 
are we going to sacrifice them on the alter of a system that is failing 
them and failing the country? Now, I say that with deep reluctance. But 
we cannot help these children unless we are honest about the situation. 
And we all know that this system is failing them.
  In New York, Mr. Speaker, 25 percent of New York's public school 
students will receive their high school diploma. The record in the 
parochial school system is 95 percent in New York. In Baltimore, fewer 
than half of the city's ninth-graders could pass a basic rudimentary 
math test. In Philadelphia, less than 6 percent of the city high school 
students tested competent in reading.
  Do you know what happens to you if you are in high school and you 
cannot read? You know what your life is going to be like? The system is 
so bad, Mr. Speaker, that none of us, whatever our feelings about this 
bill, would or do send our kids to these schools.
  So what does the bill propose to do? It increases the block grant 
money that we are giving to all the public schools and it allows them 
the discretion, if they wish to use it, to institute a school choice 
program of the kind that has succeeded in Milwaukee and Cleveland and 
in New York and places around the country.
  Why do we do that? Because this program works. The statistics show 
that. The waiting lists show that there are 20,000 parents waiting for 
1300 privately funded scholarships in New York. And the reaction of the 
establishment shows it.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason for the hostility of this bill is not because 
people are afraid the bill is going to fail but because they know it is 
going to succeed and the better education these kids will receive will 
embarrass an establishment that is failing them. The arguments against 
the bill, I have been sitting here listening to them, one of them is 
that we are not helping enough kids with it. We would like to help 
more. I would say we are helping them all. We are giving them all some 
hope. We are taking money away from the public schools. No, we are not. 
No, we are not. We are giving them more money. And then we are letting 
them, if they wish, use the money for these programs.
  And then the argument that we are hurting public schools. Mr. 
Speaker, a member of the Milwaukee school board said that the school 
choice program there has encouraged and really forced his school system 
to adopt reforms that they should have adopted a long time ago. Apart 
from that, I have to say, with the greatest respect, it is time to stop 
worrying about the bureaucracy and to start worrying about these kids. 
The bureaucracies are doing fine. The number of employees in the 
Baltimore school system has doubled in the last 40 years, at the same 
time that math and reading skills are going down.
  Mr. Speaker, let us put a human face to this. One of the things that 
motivates me, and I have talked to a lot of these kids and their 
parents around the country, is an article in the New York papers about 
the privately funded school changes program they have there; and they 
refer to a little boy named Carlos Rosario, age 9, of Washington 
Heights. And he explains why he would like a scholarship if he can get 
one. He says, ``I don't like my school. The kids are too rough. They 
hit me and push me around.''
  Mr. Speaker, I have a 7-year-old boy and two other kids. And if it 
was my boy who came home and said that, I would do anything I could to 
protect him. We have an opportunity in this modest way to take a step 
ahead for people like Carlos Rosario and his mom. I would ask the House 
to drop this partisanship and these extraneous issues and support this 
bill.

    Applicants' Parents Are Sick of Fear, Violence and Bad Teachers

                 (By Tracy Connor and Maggie Haberman)

       Parents applying for private-school scholarships say they 
     want a smaller, safer, more educational environment than the 
     public schools provide.
       Single mom Shelmadine Usher of The Bronx is keeping her 
     fingers crossed that her 6-year-old son, Timothy Moses, will 
     get one of the coveted 1,300 spots.
       He attends a private school, but the financial aid that 
     pays for it dries up when Usher graduates from community 
     college in June.
       ``I went to public school in The Bronx and it was bad, and 
     I always said that when I had a child, I would make 
     sacrifices to send him to private school, she said.
       ``I'm ready to work two jobs if this scholarship doesn't 
     come through.''
       Timothy is a quick learner and avid reader, and Usher 
     believes that private school--with higher standards and more 
     parental involvement--will keep him on the fast track.
       The greater amount of individual attention is also a plus.
       Luiyina Abreu, a third-grader in northern Manhattan, is 
     floundering in math class.
       ``I think they teach differently at private school, maybe 
     better than at my school now,'' she said. ``It would give me 
     a chance to do better.''
       Classroom safety is another big concern.
       ``I don't like my school. The kids are too rough. They hit 
     me and push me around,'' said Carlos Rosario, 9, who attends 
     PS 153 in Washington Heights.
       His mother, Maria Jiminez, is seeking scholarships for 
     Carlos and his sister, Karla, 8, who emigrated from the 
     Dominican Republic in 1993.
       ``Public school is dangerous,'' Jiminez said. ``If you're a 
     good parent, you teach your children how to behave at home. 
     But then they go to school and it's a bad environment.''
       Jasmine Abdul-Quddus, 8, who lives in the East Village and 
     attends PS 19, agrees. ``They fight and call people names.''
       Her mother, Kalima Abdul-Quddus, who moved here from 
     Atlanta three years ago, is just as concerned about academic 
     standards for Jasmine and her sister Aleah, 7.
       ``In private school, the teachers are more devoted to 
     education,'' she said. ``In public school, they just push 
     them through.''

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, does the local school board of the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Talent] endorse vouchers? Has he asked them to 
endorse vouchers?
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. That is one of the reasons why we are giving them the 
discretion to decide whether they want to under the program.
  Mr. OWENS. As an elected official, have you gone to them and asked 
them to endorse vouchers?

[[Page H9955]]

  Mr. TALENT. I have talked to the superintendents in my area.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing examples of youngsters who 
live somewhere else. I would like to hear some examples of the children 
who live in my colleague's district.
  Mr. TALENT. If the gentleman would yield, that is a different thing. 
Do the children who live in these neighborhoods want these 
scholarships? Overwhelmingly.
  If the gentleman will yield me about 30 seconds, I would be happy to 
tell him about that.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent], whose 
district is adjacent to mine and one of the richest districts in the 
country, if the children in my district, who live in one of the poorest 
districts, if these scholarships will entitle them to go from public 
schools in my district to those rich public schools in his district? 
That is a ``yes'' or ``no'' question.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. I would say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] 
that the kids from low-income neighborhoods around this country in my 
area and in his area want this program.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 additional seconds. The 
question is a ``yes'' or ``no.'' Will this bill permit poor kids in my 
schools to go to the rich schools in his district?
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. It will permit them to go to good schools in their 
neighborhoods.
  Mr. CLAY. Reclaiming my time, public schools in your neighborhood, 
``yes'' or ``no''?
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri is asking me a 
question and I am trying to answer him.
  Mr. CLAY. It is a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer.
  Mr. TALENT. It is not a ``yes'' or ``no'' question.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Talent] answer the question?
  Again, I think this voucher program is a terminal wound to public 
schools. My only concern is, why would he vote against Head Start and 
school lunch programs if he is concerned about poor children in public 
schools?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I have the greatest 
respect for all of my colleagues, and I know that they are doing what 
they are doing out of passion. They are, however, dragging in a number 
of issues that are extraneous to this bill and making comments about 
those issues that are simply not correct. We never cut the school lunch 
program. It always grew. The numbers are here. The Head Start program 
is always growing, and my colleagues all know that.
  If my colleagues can defend the existing system, defend it. If they 
cannot defend it, then do something to help these kids. Concentrate on 
them instead of on the bureaucracy.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to answer the 
question of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] with a resounding 
``yes'' and to tell the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], if this 
legislation becomes law, that anyone, elected official or other civic 
leader, who believes in school choice can petition their local school 
board to use at least part of their Federal funding to provide 
scholarships for low-income parents in low-income communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Bob Schaffer], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] yielding me the time.
  I would like to direct the body's attention, if I could, over here to 
my left. This graph shows and explains the choices that are expressed 
by Members of Congress. These bars express, according to committee, the 
first bar here is the Committee on Senate Finance, for example. Seventy 
percent of the Members on the Committee on Senate Finance send their 
children to private schools. And these show other committees that show 
a high number of Members of Congress who, when given the choice, send 
their children to private schools.
  Now, the debate is all about this. What the American people want and 
what they expressed to us is the same kind of treatment and same kind 
of choices that politicians are able to afford for themselves. This is 
what the debate really is about.
  With the thousands and thousands of parents who we have heard from, 
here is just a sample of the letters that I received from parents. What 
they tell us is that they do not want the Democrat model of restricted 
choices, of suppressed opportunity, of poor performing schools and no 
choice beyond that. What they do want, however, is to be treated like 
real customers. Allowing parents to be treated like real customers is 
what the bill before us is all about.
  I have to tell my colleagues, I am a strong supporter of public 
education. I have 3 children who are in public schools today, and they 
are there because in my district the public school system provides 
excellent opportunity and excellent results and it has earned my 
confidence. But what the American people are asking us for today and 
what we are hoping to deliver is a Republican model that treats the 
American people like the politicians in Washington treat themselves, 
just like you treat yourselves.
  I would ask the following: When they retire tonight to their cocktail 
parties and their highbrow fund-raising receptions, please think about 
the parents from inner-city school districts throughout the country who 
have written to us and asked us to be treated like real customers, to 
choose the education settings that are in the best interest of their 
children, to think about the teachers who would like to be treated like 
real professionals, to have you choose them, to stand in line if you 
would like and choose the educational services that professional 
teachers offer.
  I suggest we stand in strong support of public education today, and 
this bill is a good first step.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, in 30 seconds, I would like to know if the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaffer], that just spoke would like 
to respond to the statement he made on the House floor on September 10, 
1997: ``Government-owned schools have a complete monopoly. Plain and 
simple. And all monopolies fear competition. I can 100 percent 
guarantee an inferior product of any human endeavor that producers are 
shielded from competition that produces and are not forced to innovate 
and improve. Just look at the communist legacy in every single case, 
especially education.''
  Would he like to elaborate on that?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds for the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaffer] to respond.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I sure would. Those of my 
colleagues who wish to come up and defend this kind of a legacy, which 
has been a worldwide failure, I say be my guest.
  What America should not do is move in the direction that they would 
propose, that we have seen in Eastern Europe, for example, where they 
create centralized government monopolies. We should do just the 
opposite. We should preserve what is great about public schools in 
America.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is saying that local school 
boards elected by the people in that district are communist legacies? 
Excuse me? To me that sounds like a democracy.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaffer] to finish his statement.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. The legacy which the gentleman defends 
over here to my left is one that I would submit we should not allow to 
occur here in the United States.
  Our public school system has become the strongest in the world, 
particularly

[[Page H9956]]

because it is forced to innovate, because it is forced to be 
challenged, and that is what we ought to preserve about our system. We 
should not allow my colleague's side to consolidate authority in 
Washington, D.C., which has been a failure throughout the rest of the 
world.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, that is not what the gentleman said. He 
said, just look at the Communist legacy in every single case, 
especially in education. We are talking about here in the United 
States, not in Russia.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill 
before us, the voucher bill. I am a proud product of parochial and 
Catholic schools, and I am a very strong advocate of public education 
in America. It has been said as education goes, so goes America.
  The analogy here is that if our lifeboat is sinking, and vouchers can 
save four people, let us save four people. Many of us here on the 
Democratic side feel that to defend the current education system is 
indefensible, but you should save 10 children out of those 10 with a 
lifeboat, and not only four.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that what we have here are two very different 
approaches to saving the public education system. One is the silver 
bullet that says vouchers will basically be a panacea, and the other is 
the golden rule; the silver bullet on that side versus the golden rule, 
which says let us help everybody. Let us not give up on one public 
child, one public school, whether it is in a rural or urban area. Let 
us fix them all.
  Our plan, then, is this: It is public choice. It is fix all the 
public schools with the bill that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs] and I have worked on, charter schools, where parents should be 
able to fix and work on and send their child to any public school they 
choose. It is discipline and safety in the schools. It is better 
student-teacher ratios. It is firing bad teachers that are not doing 
their jobs. It is putting schools on probation and shutting down poorly 
performing schools. That is the Chicago public reform model.
  None of us, I hope on this side, are saying, ``We're hopeful, we're 
helpful, we want the status quo.'' Let us fix all the schools and do it 
for every American child. Defeat the vouchers and let us move on to 
public choice in charter schools with the next vote.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the 
U.S. Catholic Conference which states that it is unable to support this 
proposed legislation as currently drafted. That is because of many 
reasons, one of which is the ``Not School Aid'' provision in the new 
section 6405. They say that that section can readily be construed to 
negate the application of longstanding civil rights statutes which 
would normally apply to a scholarship program. Lacking independent 
antidiscrimination provisions elsewhere, that section effectively means 
that out of the myriad uses of title VI funds authorized, only the 
scholarship program authorized in this bill will be exempt from the 
civil rights statutes. Without clear confirmation that that section 
cannot be construed in this manner, it remains a serious concern.
  Mr. Speaker, we are very interested in civil rights application, and 
as presently drafted this bill exempts the scholarships from 
application of Federal civil rights enforcement. For that reason alone, 
the bill ought to be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, the text of the letter referred to is as follows:

                                           Department of Education


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 1997.
     Hon. Frank Riggs,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Riggs: On behalf of the United States 
     Catholic Conference, I would like to share some concerns we 
     have with H.R. 2746 which place the USCC in the regrettable 
     position of being unable to support this proposed legislation 
     as it is currently drafted.
       Allow me to state explicitly that the USCC has historically 
     supported the right of all children to receive a quality 
     education, be that in a public, private, or religious school. 
     We recognize that the intent of your proposed legislation is 
     to enable low income parents in areas of high poverty to send 
     their children to the school they feel best serves their 
     educational needs. We support the intention of H.R. 2746 in 
     principle. However, we cannot support the proposition to fund 
     this program through Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act or a program that contains the possibility of 
     negating the application of current civil rights statutes.
       Of all federal programs requiring the participation of 
     private and religious school students, Title VI is the most 
     utilized by, and impacts most positively, private and 
     religious school students. Title VI enables all schools, 
     public, private and religious, to improve curricula, 
     technology, literary programs, as well as obtain library and 
     instructional materials. For over thirty years this program 
     has had the highest participation level and the most 
     equitable distribution of benefits for private and religious 
     school students and teachers.
       Noting that the Clinton Administration has repeatedly zero 
     funded Title VI in its annual budget proposals, as well as 
     the Administration's strong opposition to any form of 
     parental choice legislation, the USCC believes any move to 
     amend Title VI in this manner would jeopardize the entire 
     Title VI program by subjecting it to a potential use of the 
     line item veto. It is the USCC's position that Title VI 
     funding is so fundamentally important to public, private, and 
     religious schools and their students that it should in no way 
     be placed in such a compromised position.
       The definition of a ``voluntary public and private parental 
     choice program'' in new section 6003(3) of H.R. 2746 raises 
     an additional concern. Participation of a single private 
     school in a choice program would meet the requirements of the 
     new scholarship program. Thus, it would be permissible for an 
     LEA or an SEA to divert significant Title VI funds to public 
     schools by designing an overwhelming public school choice 
     program that includes only one token private school. Under 
     the current statute, public and private school children share 
     equitably in the benefits and services provided with Title VI 
     funds. LEAs and SEAs should not be allowed to upset this 
     longstanding balance under the pretext of a public and 
     private parental choice program that in reality would 
     essentially be a public school choice program. While the USCC 
     is confident that this is not the Sponsors' intent, H.R. 2746 
     needs to be clarified to insure that the choice programs 
     authorized include representative numbers of both public and 
     private schools.
       An additional reason why the USCC is unable to support H.R. 
     2746 is the ``Not School Aid'' provision in the new section 
     6405(a). Whatever its ramifications for defense against an 
     Establishment Clause challenge, section 6405(a) can readily 
     be construed to negate the application of longstanding civil 
     rights statutes, in particular Title VI of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964, Title X of the Education Amendments of 1972 and 
     Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that would 
     normally apply to a scholarship program. Lacking independent 
     antidiscrimination provisions elsewhere in H.R. 2746, section 
     6405(a) effectively means that out of the myriad of uses of 
     Title VI funds authorized, only the scholarship program 
     authorized by H.R. 2746 would be exempt from the civil rights 
     statutes cited above. Without clear confirmation that section 
     6405(a) cannot be construed in this manner, it will remain a 
     serious concern for the USCC. Contrary to what some may 
     argue, we have been advised by counsel that applying the 
     civil rights statutes to the attenuated indirect benefits 
     that participating private schools may receive from enrolling 
     scholarship students will not result in an Establishment 
     Clause violation.
       Again, the USCC expresses its support for the intent of the 
     proposed legislation, but is unable to support H.R. 2746 due 
     to the reasons outlined above.
           Very Truly Yours,
                                 Rev. Msgr. Thomas J. McDade, EdD,
                                          Secretary for Education.

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Rothman].
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, today unfortunately the radical Republicans 
in Congress are continuing their all-out attack on the public school 
system. They want it to wither on the vine, because just like with 
Medicare, the conservative extremists do not believe in public school 
education.
  Public school education is the key that unlocks the door to the 
American dream for 90 percent of America's children, including my own 
two kids. We cannot allow these people in Congress to destroy America's 
public school system. Besides, what would be next? Are we going to give 
people vouchers to buy books if they do not believe in the public 
library? Are we going to give people vouchers to buy their own swing 
set if they feel that the local playground, local park, is 
inconvenient?
  No, because we are still a country that believes in the collective 
good and the American dream. Let us fix our

[[Page H9957]]

public schools, let us encourage charter schools to create competition, 
but let us not pillage the public school system in America. That will 
not be good for America.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to suggest to the 
gentleman who just read that prepared statement that he ought to listen 
to the poignant testimony of Devalon Shakespeare, who is the parent of 
a child who attends a parochial school in Cleveland under the Cleveland 
parental choice program, and who testified at our field hearing there. 
Here is Mr. Shakespeare's words. He happens to be an African-American:
  ``I'm not going to tear down the Cleveland Public School System,'' 
and we are not trying to do that on this side, but he went on to say, 
``I don't have time to wait for a school system to get themselves 
together. I'm trying to raise my children now.''
  Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the bipartisan efforts of the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] on the charter school bill, and I hope later 
tonight or tomorrow, whenever this week we vote on that legislation, a 
majority of his Democratic colleagues are going to support final 
passage of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest], a former public school teacher.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. One of the previous speakers made mention that this 
legislation, and I support this legislation, was a radical idea. Let me 
just tell Members some of the radicals in this Nation's history. Thomas 
Jefferson was a radical, and he broke with tradition. Martin Luther 
King, Jr., was a radical, and he broke with tradition. Those people 
from our past had dreams.
  I am a proud product of the public school system. I graduated public 
school 33 years ago, and it was an integrated public school. I am a 
proud former public school teacher. The only way we are going to 
improve the quality of our schools is to break with tradition. The only 
way we are going to improve the quality of the public schools is to 
come up with ideas and find alternatives. This Nation is based on 
ideas. This Nation is based on dreams. This Nation is based on vision. 
This is a visionary piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one thing we can all agree upon 
here tonight is we have a fundamental obligation to confront the facts 
as we debate what is going to happen to children around the country in 
our public school system. I think it is clear the burden has not been 
met by those who are advocating the vouchers to prove that this will 
have a substantial impact that is positive to a substantial number of 
kids in our public school system.
  It has been suggested our schools are broken. It is our fundamental 
obligation to fix those schools, working with the State, working with 
school boards, working with cities and counties to make those schools 
work. If we were to invest a fraction of the time and energy that has 
been devoted to these vouchers in trying to come through with positive 
reforms for our schools, we would have some positive impacts for all of 
our kids.
  Let me give Members one specific example. Charter schools. Charter 
schools in my State, in Florida, are resulting in a serious reduction 
in the administrative costs in school systems. What the schools are 
doing is they are taking that money and they are putting it into class 
size. An average class size is 17 children in the charter schools that 
have been opened in many places in Florida. That gives a teacher more 
opportunity to provide attention to the gifted child, to the child with 
learning disabilities and to the average child. Equally importantly, it 
gives that teacher the opportunity to control unruly and disruptive 
kids in that class. That is positive reform. That is real reform. That 
is making a difference.
  Public school choice, which we also adopted in Florida, is another 
meaningful way of empowering parents to choose the school of their 
choice for the child. We have also had success with magnet schools, 
both in Tampa, my home, and the State of Florida. These are proven, 
positive reforms at work. All we need to do is invest in making them 
happen. This is the way we impact our kids positively. Let us defeat 
vouchers and get on with some real business.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, after hearing the last gentleman's comments, 
I can tell he is very genuine and sincere, but I cannot understand why 
the National Education Association, the nationwide teachers union and 
the core constituency of the national Democratic Party opposes the 
Riggs-Roemer charter school bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the gentleman 
from New Jersey saying that we had radical ideas. My wife is a public 
schoolteacher and a principal today. She has got a doctorate in 
education, a master's in business, and a master's in education. I was a 
teacher in the public education system. My children have gone to public 
schools.
  The last thing we want to do is hurt public education. But when we 
look at the position we are in in many of our schools, we do not want 
to deny children to get the same education as anyone else does in an 
education system. It is not a radical idea, it is an idea for the time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] 
for yielding me this time.
  It is so interesting to hear my colleagues on the opposite side of 
the aisle quote African American parents and their desire to have 
vouchers. I think that it suggests a few things. I would hope that the 
Republican Party and my leaders on the other side of the aisle would 
listen to African American families more often as they debate health 
care and debate education and debate ways to balance our budget in 
humane and compassionate ways.
  But if we want to talk about African-American kids, I think it is 
somewhat unfortunate, because this is, indeed, an American issue. 
America's single greatest threat in tomorrow's marketplace is an 
uneducated work force. I would caution the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] and all of his colleagues as they travel down that 
treacherous path.
  I have been to a school in my district this last few days, Mr. 
Speaker, called Mitchell High School, where all of my aunts and uncles 
graduated from. They are the recipient of a corporate grant from the 
Pfizer Corp., which allows them to engage in an environmental study 
program at the school. All of the kids in the class came into the 
school yesterday, although school was out, to allow parents and 
teachers to engage in parent-teacher conferences. The kids all said the 
reason that they enjoy this class, Mr. Speaker, is because it is 
interesting, it is challenging, it is stimulating. No one talked about 
vouchers, no one talked about public schools, no one talked about 
choice.
  If we are so concerned in this body about children and African 
American children, Latino children and inner-city children, let us 
listen to what the young people are saying. They want to be challenged 
and stimulated in the classroom. There is no guarantee that vouchers 
will do it or charter schools will do it, although I am a supporter of 
charter schools. But one thing is for certain. The plan that the 
gentleman has put forward will only impact a minute, finite number of 
kids in our school system and say they are helped. What do we do with 
the remaining 52.3 million kids in our school system, Mr. Speaker?
  Mayor Daley in Chicago has shown us that the public school model can, 
indeed, work. Chicago is faced with every conceivable ill in the public 
system, yet Mayor Daley has tackled it, embraced it and moved forward.
  I would say to my friends on the other side, defeat this bill, do 
what is right for kids. Let us challenge, stimulate them and empower 
them.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleagues on the other 
side, particularly the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] when he 
talked about innovation. We are all for

[[Page H9958]]

innovation. I think the Democrats have clearly shown that we would like 
to see innovative programs in the public schools. But what we are 
saying is that that innovation should not be through private education, 
it should be through public education.
  We went down a couple of weeks ago when the Republicans brought up 
the school vouchers bill in the D.C. schools to the Brent School, I 
think it was, just a couple of blocks from the Capitol. What we saw was 
a very innovative program in the public school, a public school that 
was doing great with tutoring programs, with some innovative programs 
in various ways.
  In my home State of New Jersey through Goals 2000, I can give Members 
a whole list of innovations that are being accomplished in the public 
schools in New Jersey. That is a great thing. Innovation should be 
done, but it should be done in the public schools.

                              {time}  1915

  Do not give up on the public schools. And I am afraid that is what my 
colleagues are doing. They are saying that they want to help the public 
schools, but this is just taking resources, scarce resources, away from 
the public schools.
  This money today comes from an innovative approach in the classroom 
fund in title VI block grants which are used for innovations in the 
public schools. If they keep draining away the resources from the 
public schools to use them for a voucher program, there is not going to 
be anything left for innovative programs in the public schools.
  The Republican leadership has been steadfastly against public 
education. They wanted to abolish the Department of Education. They 
have repeatedly slashed funding for public education in various 
Congresses, going way back.
  So do not tell me that what we hear about today is trying to help the 
public schools through some sort of competition. That is not true. If 
my colleagues want to help the public schools, then put the money where 
their mouth is; put it in public education, do not take it away from 
title VI programs.
  And that is what I see happening here over and over again in this 
Congress, started with D.C., where they have some of the most serious 
problems in terms of need for renovation and repairs and could use that 
money to fix up the schools, and now trying to expand this terrible 
voucher program nationwide.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out I am 
glad the gentleman mentioned D.C. public schools since he opposed and 
voted against opportunity scholarships for 2,000 District of Columbia 
parents and families even though that school district spends $10,000 
per child and has the worst test scores and lowest graduation rates of 
any inner city school district in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Flake], a colleague who will soon be retiring from the House of 
Representatives, who has been a brave, courageous, lonely voice at 
times on the other side of the aisle and the Democrat cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this bill as sponsor of 
the bill, and I realize that over the last few weeks I have been called 
everything from an enemy of the people to whatever can be imagined. But 
I do not have a problem with that, I do not have a problem with that, 
because I stand on my credentials.
  I started my career in Head Start. I saw young people that we were 
able to get to second grade level. We tested them at second grade, 
tested the same young people at second grade after they had been in 
public school for 2 years. They were still at second grade level in 
most categories.
  And I also represent I am a person who built a school almost 20 years 
ago. That school does produce young people at $3,200 per child versus 
$10,000 per child in the same district we do not test kids in. Those 
kids are educated; they are able to pass the national tests; they are 
able to function in an environment that is competitive.
  I also served as dean of students at Boston University and as 
associate dean of students at Lincoln before that, and for those who 
say I cannot reason, I have an earned doctorate, not an honorary but an 
earned doctorate. So I do not think I am in a position not to be able 
to reason.
  I just think that this issue transcends party, this issue transcends 
race. It deals with a simple question of educating our young people. 
All of our young people are not being educated. There is an upper tier 
and a lower tier. The lower tier is represented by many of the schools 
in the district that I represent, and on that lower tier I will tell my 
colleagues that these young people are not being prepared so that they 
can compete in the society in which we live.
  We must do everything we can to assure that the public school system 
that we speak about is one that does not discriminate. We talk about 
discrimination provisions and civil rights provisions. I agree 
wholeheartedly that that is an appropriate discussion. But the reality 
is, discrimination is practiced every day in the system when young 
people in districts like the one I represent cannot go to the school, 
the better schools, when the young people in my district cannot go even 
to the better schools in the district because certain of those 
districts have limited the number of seats that are available for those 
young people to participate. They will take the cream of the crop; they 
leave the worst behind. They leave them in situations where they are 
not being properly educated. That, my brothers and sisters, is 
discrimination.
  I think the system must benefit every child and must benefit them 
equally. The school system is not doing that. There are too many 
children who are stuck, there are too many children who have lost their 
dreams, have lost their hope of ever being able to be competitive in 
the society in which we live.
  And there comes a point in time, and I saw it as I was in charge of 
the admissions program in both universities, when those young people 
have to compete with other persons, whether it is the ACT exam, the 
SAT, or whether they try to go to graduate school and get MCAT's and 
LSAT's and GMAT's. They are not competitive. We have an obligation to 
make them competitive in this society. If we are not doing that, we are 
not being fair to them. We must challenge them, and we must challenge 
the system.
  I will vote for charter schools because I believe that we have to 
have all of the alternatives that we possibly can, but I also think 
that scholarships must be considered. I sit on the scholarship 
committee in New York. We put our 27,000 applications; 1,000 of those 
applications are all we could afford. Those were moneys that came from 
the outside. The persons I sit with on that committee represent some of 
the persons in this country who make the highest salaries, but they 
will not put those moneys in the public system.
  I would say to my colleagues, those persons who pay their taxes every 
day deserve to have their children educated, and they deserve to have 
them educated without having a double tax because they turn right 
around and have to pay for private education.
  My brothers and sisters, I will yield when I finish, when I get 
closer to the finish. My brother who is standing now says that we have 
not had groups, we have not had focus groups. Well, let me tell my 
colleagues, I was with 400 people and parents on Saturday at the Tucson 
Institute. Every one of those parents were there for one reason: Their 
children are not being properly educated.
  I meet with an education focus group. Those people are generally 
teachers in the public system. They say, we have got to do something; 
we cannot do the job that we have been hired to do because of the 
bureaucracy in this system; we cannot do it because other people in the 
unions are jealous of us and will not let us do the jobs.
  I say to my colleagues, let us try something. I cannot afford to see 
many more children die from this genocide.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Flake] an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, we must accept the fact that there is a lower 
tier in the system, and in that lower tier, genocide is being practiced 
every day, and when they cannot manage these children, they put them in 
special ed. It is the first track toward incarceration, and we wind up 
spending money for those children later on.

[[Page H9959]]

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. How long is the waiting list at your excellent school?
  Mr. FLAKE. My waiting list is 150 students. That is why we have to 
create as many slots as we can. And I take back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. How many can you accept?
  Mr. FLAKE. I cannot accept them because this program is for a 
different income class, but I will build another school.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, another day, another attempt to 
siphon resources away from our public schools. That is what is really 
before us today, a proposal that will take tax dollars and use them to 
subsidize private schools.
  See, it seems the Republican Party has given up on public schools. 
Instead of trying to make them better for every child, it wants them to 
die on the vine by starving them of the resources they need. The bill 
before us takes money that is targeted to helping public schools and, 
as the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], a Republican, has 
said, creates a new educational entitlement for private schools. It is 
legislation driven by politics, not policy. It is a bill that has no 
hearing but a well orchestrated press conference behind it.
  America's children deserve better than to be part of a poll-driven 
political strategy, which is just what this is. The answer to the woes 
in our Nation's schools that we have heard from the majority does not 
mean giving up on our neighborhood classrooms. The answer is a national 
commitment to fixing our schools so that every American child can live 
up to their God given potential.
  In a northern rural part of my district, for example, Tehama County, 
California's Department of Education has just released this year's test 
scores. Second grade reading scores are up 29 percent over last year; 
third grade reading scores soared 24 percent.
  So how did this school turn things around so that every child in this 
public school received a first-class education? Let me tell my 
colleagues. It slashed class sizes from 33 to 20 students, it trained 
teachers to do their job better through professional development 
classes, it made sure that teachers and their students committed 3 
hours every day to literacy, and it made sure that every classroom was 
wired to the information highway.
  When we make the commitment to public schools, they work. When 
parents and teachers and students and communities demand accountability 
from public schools, they work. So why is it that the Republicans want 
to pluck a select few out of the public schools while taking resources 
away from the rest? Why do they want to destroy schools that are 
accountable to parents and the community and give our tax money to 
private schools that put their bottom line ahead of the common good? 
Why is it that the very same people lecturing us here tonight about how 
public schools are failing are the very same Members who will not 
support the President's proposal to devote more of our resources to 
teach children how to read?
  If schools are failing, the solution is not to give vouchers to a 
handful of children and leave the rest behind. The solution is fixing 
the problem, fixing the whole school, not providing a handout and 
taxpayer subsidies to private schools.
  The choice tonight is clear. We ought to support choice in the public 
schools, not aiding private schools through vouchers. As a parent whose 
four children have gone to public schools, and they have never been, I 
might add, in the racial majority in any of them, I reject this effort 
to placate the political right.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to point out that 
under our bill the money goes to parents, and, unfortunately, there are 
those on the other side of the aisle, such as the gentleman who just 
spoke, who is perfectly prepared to tell those parents, the poorest of 
the poor, whose children attend unsafe or underperforming schools that 
there is no hope for them and for their children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, the bill will increase the amount of money 
that goes to the public schools because they are going to be able to 
keep more of the title VI money. It then lets them have the discretion 
to use that for these scholarships if they want. So it is going to mean 
more money for the public schools and more options for them and I 
think, and I hope, work out for more options for low income Americans.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, just a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCollum). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. RIGGS. At this point in time we have two speakers remaining, the 
majority leader of the House of Representatives and the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, and it is our intent that if the minority 
agrees that at this point the majority leader would speak, then there 
would be one more speaker on their side to close debate on their side, 
and then we would go to the Speaker of the House to close the entire 
debate.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the Majority Leader of 
the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that this 
legislation that we are debating today has practically no relevance 
whatsoever to the people who live in the 26th District of Texas, does 
not impact on their lives, does not mean a thing in their lives. People 
in my district, in the suburbs of Dallas, are relatively well off. They 
made their school choice when they took their incomes from their 
relatively good paying jobs and moved into the neighborhoods where the 
schools were sound, safe, and of service to their children. They are 
not interested in this subject, not the least bit. Many of them take 
their incomes and take their child, while they pay their local taxes to 
support the public schools, take their child to another school.
  I myself took my own son out of the public school in the district in 
which I paid my taxes and to another public school down the road that 
had a better music program, and I myself was able to pay for the 
tuition costs. It is good fortune for my son.
  And in this current law, these same schools that are so well off on 
their own basis received title VI moneys which they can use now for 
technology curricula or other instructional materials, library 
materials, assessments, magnet schools, literacy programs, gifted and 
talented programs, dropout assistance, and other reform activities.

                              {time}  1930

  What we are thinking about here is those schools that are quite 
frankly in the minority among all the schools in America but, 
strategically relevant to the lives of the children in their 
communities, simply are failing the children, children whose parents 
are not well off like the parents in my district, children whose 
parents are not able to move to a better school district. They are not 
able to make all of the conventional, quiet, silent school choice 
decisions that many Americans make, but they find that it is imperative 
that their child get an education, perhaps even more so than the 
children that live in my district. They know acutely in their mind that 
the only hope for their child is to get an education that works in that 
child's life.
  They do not care about theories. They do not care about dogma, they 
do not care about politics. They care about their child. And we are 
saying, let us extend the things under which title VI monies might be 
used by the State, might be used by the State, to construct on behalf 
of those parents and those children the option to take that child that 
has now and next year to get through the third and the fourth grades 
and to do so successfully, so that they can be prepared to go on, and 
take them out of that school that today is failing that child and put 
them in that school in which their child can succeed, even though they 
do not have the independent means to do it themselves, to add another 
option for the parent on behalf of the child.

[[Page H9960]]

  I cannot imagine anybody that would look to those parents who so 
desperately want this opportunity for this child now and say, mom, dad, 
why do we not wait until we repair this school that is failing this 
child now, in total disregard to their fear that this child will have 
lost this year, for this third grade, while they were waiting for help 
to arrive, that hopefully will arrive.
  This is not an expression of lack of appreciation for public 
education. It is an expression of love for children who are caught in 
circumstances beyond their parents' control where their only current 
option is a school that is a proven failure, and a willingness to say 
to the States, if you have the heart for these children and these 
parents, you may use these funds to give those parents who cannot 
otherwise afford it a chance to do for their child what wealthy parents 
in my district do every day of their life.
  I do not understand anybody who can find that objectionable. A child 
is not precious because he lives in my district. A child is not 
precious because his folks can afford to pay taxes for good schools 
that really shine. A child is not precious because his mom and dad can 
afford Sidwell Friends. A child is precious because a child is 
precious, and every child deserves whatever help this Congress can find 
it in their heart to do. That is really what it is all about. Is it 
about heart, or is it indeed about politics?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the honorable majority 
leader if he could explain the fact that the State of Texas actually 
introduced vouchers in the legislature. They actually had a floor vote 
in Texas and it failed in the State legislature; it was not passed in 
the State legislature of Texas.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCollum). The gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Gephardt] is recognized for 4\1/4\ minutes.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I urge a ``no'' 
vote on vouchers and a ``yes'' vote for public schools. I want to say 
that I think everybody here tonight is well-meaning and everybody here 
I would submit cares about what happens to our children, but I believe 
that we have to enter into a new discussion. Part of that will happen 
with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] on charter schools.
  There are other ideas that we are wanting to talk about: Early 
childhood development, Basics by Six, well-trained teachers and 
equipped classrooms, relief for crumbling and overcrowded schools, 
support for local plans to review neighborhood public schools, 
efficient and coordinated use of resources, parental choice for public 
schools. This is an agenda that begins to start a national conversation 
about how we improve our public schools.
  I had a meeting this morning in my district with the superintendents 
of all of the school districts in my district, the City of St. Louis, 
many of the county districts in St. Louis, Jefferson County, and I 
asked them about this agenda, and I asked them about what we ought to 
be talking about. Incidentally, most of those school districts, in fact 
all of them, get very good outcomes. That does not mean it is uniform. 
That does not mean that every kid is getting a good education. It does 
not mean every child is graduating, but they are getting some pretty 
darn good outcomes.
  We never talk much about that; we never congratulate the people in 
the public schools that are doing a good job and getting a good result, 
which is the vast majority of our public schools. We act sometimes as 
if all the schools are bad and all the kids are not getting an 
education. Not true.
  Mr. Speaker, when I asked my superintendents what they thought we 
ought to be talking about today instead of vouchers, they talked about 
repairing crumbling schools. One superintendent said, yes, you want to 
talk about computers? I cannot get an electric line from the electric 
pole outside my school to support computers. And then once, if I got 
the electricity and got the computers and got the software and trained 
the teachers, who would pay the connection charges to the Internet?
  They talked about early childhood education. Every kindergarten in 
Missouri does not have kids go all day at age 5. They said the best 
thing you could do would be to have the kids come all day at age 5 into 
kindergarten so we could get a good start. That would probably be more 
important than many of the other ideas put together. There is a long 
list of things that we ought to be talking about our public schools.
  Let me say to my colleagues, I think the organizing principle of this 
society should be making sure that every child is a productive citizen. 
After World War II we knew what the organizing principle in our society 
was. It was to make sure that we deterred nuclear war and we kept the 
Russians from invading us, and fighting communism, and everybody knew 
their role in that great mission that we won when the wall came down. 
But since then, we do not know what our organizing principle is. And 
the truth is, it is not just money; it is everybody's commitment to 
this task of making sure every child gets a chance at a good education.
  I was in a school in my district last week, Shepard's School in the 
City of St. Louis, and they had all the mothers there. The principal 
goes out and sees parents who will not come in and work in the school 
and the one mother got up and she said, I work at night, but I am here 
every day from 7:30 in the morning until 3 o'clock in the afternoon, 
and I am here to do whatever the principal and the teachers want me to 
do. I said, why do you do this? She said, I have 2 kids in this school 
and I want them to have a good education and I want them to go to 
college. But then she said, but understand, every kid in this school is 
my child.
  That is the attitude that we have to have on the part of every 
American in this country. Every child is my child. Even if I do not 
have a child in the school, I want to be in the school, because we must 
raise these children to be productive citizens. We must not siphon off 
the dollars that are so desperately needed by our public schools to go 
to private schools. We have to make sure that they go to the children 
that are wanting and demanding an opportunity to succeed.
  Let us make that the organizing principle of this society. Let us 
stop this discussion of vouchers and let us get on to the discussion, 
the unfinished agenda of this country, to make the public schools in 
this country better. We can do it, and we are going to do it starting 
tonight.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, by his comments I guess the minority leader 
is suggesting that he will help us get a majority of Democratic votes 
for our charter school bill later tonight or later this week.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I am very proud to yield, for the 
purposes of closing the debate on the HELP scholarships bill, to the 
Speaker of the House, to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is 
recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. I think it should be very clear to everyone who 
actually pays attention to this amendment that it is about educating 
our children. It is about educating children in schools where they are 
currently failing.
  Let me give my colleagues the numbers for Washington, DC. If you are 
in the third grade in Washington, in mathematics, 37 percent of the 
students perform below grade level. But if you stay in those schools, 
by the time you are in sixth grade, 55 percent of the students perform 
below grade level. If you stay in those schools, by the time you are in 
the eighth grade, 72 percent of the students perform below grade level. 
If you stay in the schools, by the time you are in the tenth grade, 89 
percent of the children in Washington are performing below the grade 
level.
  Now, I do not think that is because children in Washington are 
peculiarly stupid. I think that is because they are trapped in a system 
which serves the union, serves the bureaucracy, serves the politicians, 
but fails to serve the children.
  My good friend from Missouri made a great appeal. I want these 
children, the

[[Page H9961]]

89 percent who are scoring below grade level, to have a chance to have 
a decent life. I want them to have a choice to go to college and not to 
prison. And I know that after all of the years of trying, that all the 
speeches on this floor is not going to save a single child by keeping 
them trapped in a room that fails.
  Now, recently, two very successful Americans announced that they 
would establish 1,000 scholarships, funded with private money, and in 
10 days time they received 2,000 applications, 2,000 from parents who 
love their children and want them to avoid prison by having a chance to 
go to a school with discipline and having a chance to get an education, 
in 10 days time.
  Now, what does this amendment say? It says that if your State 
legislature, your State legislature, wants to give children in your 
State a choice, to give the parents a choice; this is this great, 
radical, new, terrible thing. That is all it says, is that your State 
legislature can use some of that title VI money to give the children of 
your State a choice if they have concluded that theirs is a school 
district so bad, a school system so terrible that those children 
currently are being destroyed.
  What do our friends over here on the left say? Do not even trust the 
State legislature to try to create an opportunity for those children to 
escape the union and escape the bureaucracy and escape the failure. 
Now, really, is it not sort of frightening to think that we have to 
trap the children?
  I will just close with this observation. I am a graduate of public 
schools and I taught in a public high school. My wife is a graduate of 
public schools, both of my daughters are graduates of public schools, 
we believe in public schools, and in my district, middle class people 
have a choice because they move into our counties to go to school, and 
the rich have a choice because they send their kids to private school.
  The only people in America without a choice are the poorest children 
in the poorest neighborhoods who are trapped by the bureaucracies and 
the unions and exploited against their will. Let us give those children 
a chance to go to college and not go to jail. Let us vote yes on this 
amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, weeks ago, a vicious assault was made 
against Washington, D.C. public schools by offering vouchers as a cure-
all solution; today, another assault is being directed against American 
public education. This proposed $310 million funding is not an 
investment with an anticipated return for better education in America; 
this funding is merely a political ploy. I oppose political motives at 
the risk of poor and disenfranchised children in America. I oppose this 
assault on public education.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Brown versus Board decision, 
announced in 1954, our nation began to address the issue of unequal 
education systems in the United States.
  Today, a different phenomenon catches our attention. We witness a 
continued disparity within our education infrastructure among the rich 
and poor children of our society. The rich continue to gain access 
through the door of opportunity, while the poor are simultaneously 
condemned to the locked room of despair.
  Mr. Speaker, the advocates of this bill say that it would correct the 
problem of continued disparity in our impoverished and disadvantaged 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, few students will actually benefit from this scholarship 
program relative to the entire group of impoverished students in 
America. Many students currently enrolled in public school will be left 
behind in inferior and unequal education institutions. Finally, many 
families, to whom vouchers would be given, would not have the necessary 
income to defray the residual costs of additional tuition for private 
schools. It is emphatically clear that the most needy families in 
America will not benefit from this voucher initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, the day Congress appropriates for school vouchers is the 
day Congress abdicates from the long-lived and enduring concept of 
quality public education in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the continued development and success of 
public education in America. Voucher programs are impractical, and do 
not allow us to address the real concerns of American public education. 
I urge my colleagues on both sides to consider the full effects of this 
bill, and vote against this legislation.
  Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
legislation. The so-called ``HELP'' Scholarships would gut our public 
school system and provide no help at all to the children who need it 
the most.
  It's not surprising that a party with a member who painted public 
education as a ``communist legacy'' continues to try to dismantle our 
nation's tradition of public schools. Time and time again Republicans 
have tried to push through their anti-education agenda, only to be 
pushed back by Democrats and a President who has vowed to veto these 
bills which would destroy our public schools.
  A few weeks ago, Republicans passed with a one vote margin a measure 
to impose vouchers on the D.C. school system. Today they are trying to 
impose the same experiment on all of our nation's children.
  90 percent of America's children depend on public schools to provide 
them with the skills they need to excel in the future. But the Gingrich 
voucher experiment will not help these students get a better start in 
life. Instead, the Gingrich voucher experiment will siphon funds out of 
the public school system and give them to private schools. Public 
schools will be left without the resources they desperately need to buy 
books, fix leaky roofs, and put computers in the classroom.
  This is unacceptable. Our nation was founded on the principle that 
everyone would have an equal opportunity to succeed. Public schools 
bring together students of all races, creeds and economic classes to 
learn together. Each student comes in at equal footing, and everyone 
gets the same opportunities. That is the formula that works.
  No one is arguing that public schools don't need improvement. So 
let's rise to that challenge and give them the means to improve. Let's 
not set our public schools up for failure by denying them the 
assistance to make changes and improve their students' performance.
  Don't abandon the public school system. Give our children help they 
can use--invest in our public schools, and oppose the Gingrich voucher 
experiment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 
2746, the HELP Scholarships Act. The title of this legislation is very 
appropriate--HELP Empower Low-Income Parents--because H.R. 2746 gives 
parents greater choices to provide their children with a better 
education. One of the most contentious battles looming before us today 
is the battle to save our children by improving education. But now is 
the time to stop talking about saving schools and start talking about 
saving students. We must put partisan politics aside and debate the 
merits of legislation based on what is best for our children, not what 
is best for the education bureaucracy.
  Every child is unique and has different needs from the education 
system. Public schools may not be the answer for everyone, yet lower 
income families have no other choice. The system is clearly failing 
these students when you hear statistics like 40 percent of all 10 year 
olds can't meet basic literacy standards, U.S. eighth-graders placed 
28th in the world in math and science skills, and almost a third of 
today's college freshman require some remedial instruction.

  This bill helps the poorest of our nation and gives their children a 
chance that they never had to get a quality education. In some cases, 
that will mean staying in a public school or going to a nearby magnet 
school. In others, it will mean attending a private or parochial 
school. But who do we think we are to stand in this chamber and dictate 
where every child must attend school? We are elected to represent those 
families, not to dictate their lives. The parents should be the ones to 
decide which school is right for their child. By means testing this 
program, as the legislation mandates, it will guarantee that only the 
lowest income families will be eligible to receive scholarships for 
their children. No one can claim that this bill is just another way to 
subsidize middle class parents sending their children to private 
schools. Scholarships would only go to students whose families are at 
or below 185 percent of the poverty rate to cover the cost of tuition 
at any private, public or religious school located in the impoverished 
neighborhood.
  This bill is about helping parents help their children. I want the 
parents and children in my district to have access to the best 
education possible. As a lawmaker, I owe it to future generations. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2746.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I do, indeed, have some troubling thoughts 
about this bill--H.R. 2746, the HELP Scholarship Act--though obviously 
well intentioned.
  The bill is presented as ``Parental Choice,'' but that choice is 
obviously conditioned upon the right of private schools to ``pick and 
choose'' which students will be accepted apparently on almost any 
condition--i.e., religion, creed, foreign birth, gender, academic 
standing, or mental or physical handicap. All in all, there doesn't 
appear to be as much choice for parents here as there is for the 
private school.
  It is held out as ``competition for the public schools''. It surely 
is that, but it isn't ``fair'' competition, that is, there in no 
``level playing field''. Public schools must accept every child who 
appears at its doors--regardless of race, religion, creed, foreign 
birth, academic standing, or mental or physical handicaps. When

[[Page H9962]]

we compare public and private schools, after all, we are comparing good 
apples and good oranges. They do not compete on the same playing field 
in elementary and secondary education.
  I wonder too--as bad as things are in many low income area public 
schools--what happens to the kids who can't get into a private school 
and are left behind? There's bound to be a loss of public funds for 
them, less Ch. VI funds, less state aid which is usually measured on 
the basis of student population.
  I'm also concerned that we didn't have a markup on this bill so we 
could have aired our feelings and better understood the precedent we 
are establishing.
  I think too that Charter schools are a better vehicle to help kids in 
low income areas.
  I wonder too about the provision in this bill which provides that 
states ``may allow State and local [tax] funds to be used for the 
voluntary public and private parental choice program.''
  These concerns will cause me to vote against this bill in spite of 
the good intentions of the sponsor.
  I think it is a troublesome precedent.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2746, the 
``HELP Scholarship Act.'' This measure amends the $310 million 
education block grant, title IV of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. It is another attempt, by the Republican majority, to 
drain critical financial resources from our Nation's public schools and 
to put them in the hands of a select few students attending private and 
religious schools. These resources are needed to raise academic 
standards and achievements in schools that are increasingly 
overburdened with complex financial problems.
  I am particularly concerned about the manner in which this bill has 
been rushed to the House floor. When supporters of H.R. 2746 realized 
that they did not have enough votes to report the bill out of the House 
Committee on Education and the Workforce last Friday, the full 
committee markup was canceled. Yet, late Wednesday night, the Rules 
Committee decided that H.R. 2746 would be considered under a closed 
rule, so that Members would not have an opportunity to 
offer amendments. The fact that this measure did not have full support 
from all of the Republicans on the House Committee on Education and the 
Workforce is a clear indication that H.R. 2746 is bad news for our 
Nation's students and public schools.

  Mr. Speaker, supporters of school vouchers say that vouchers will 
foster improvements in the Nation's public schools by creating 
competition. However, as I mentioned earlier, school vouchers will 
drain scarce funds away from public schools, hurting the majority of 
students who will not have the opportunity to attend private and 
religious schools. Supporters of school vouchers say that vouchers will 
enable parents to send their children to any school that they choose. 
However, that is an illusion. Real choice remains in the hands of 
private school admissions officers.
  Supporters of school vouchers also say that these programs raise 
student achievement. However, the most extensive research on the impact 
of existing school voucher programs does not show any clear, positive 
benefit. School vouchers programs are not powerful enough to impact the 
Nation's public schools in the way that supporters would like to 
believe.
  The school voucher program in my own congressional district of 
Cleveland, OH, cost $6.4 million in 1996, including $5.25 million that 
had previously supported the Cleveland public school system's 
disadvantaged pupil aid program. And, while the program has only been 
in effect since September 1996, current evidence indicates that it has 
only had a marginal impact of the educational options available to 
public school families.
  I strongly believe that we are morally obligated to ensure that all 
students across the Nation have equal access to quality education. We 
must not abandon our public schools. Instead, we must strengthen our 
commitment to improve them, doing all that we can to strengthen and 
reform them, not weaken them.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose--and urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing--H.R. 2746. This bill is bad public policy. Education reform 
can only succeed if all students benefit. There are nearly 46 million 
public school students in the United States and, it is estimated that 
by the year 2006, there will be 3 million more. School vouchers will 
only reach a limited number of students. We must support educational 
policies that will benefit all children. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the HELP Scholarship Act.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in adamant opposition to the 
``Help Empower Low-income Parents Scholarship Bill.'' Do not be moved 
by supporters of this bill who claim that by opposing this legislation 
you are supporting schools that fail to serve children well. Let me 
make it clear that I certainly do not support schools that are not able 
to perform the basic task of teaching children how to read and write. 
However, I will not give up on the public education system of this 
country. I will not give up on this system because it has served as the 
great equalizer for people of this nation. The civil rights movement 
was based on the notion that if all people are able to have the 
opportunity to receive a quality education then we truly will make real 
steps toward equality. By supporting schools that are designed to serve 
all children we uphold this vision. Giving up on our school system and 
this notion of educational equality is exactly what this bill will 
accomplish. It will put federal funds not in the hands of low income 
parents but in the pockets of religious and private schools that will 
crop up simply to capitalize on this voucher program. It will do 
nothing to better the situation education is in today, but perpetuate 
it and make it far worse. Republicans claim this bill will empower low-
income families. However, if they really cared about low-income 
children, a disproportionate number of whom are minorities, they would 
have included language that would protect civil rights and guarantee 
equal educational opportunities for all students. This bill blatantly 
lacks such language. Instead, this bill contains only watered down 
anti-discrimination requirements for participating schools. This is a 
clear indication that Republicans have motives not to improve education 
but to funnel federal money to private schools and out of public 
control. Let me make it clear that I do believe that our schools need 
to be reformed. However, I strongly believe that if there is a problem 
with something you work hard to correct it. You make an investment and 
a commitment both financially and philosophically to change and reform 
that problem. This is a commitment and investment that the majority 
party of this Congress has not made. They have not supported 
legislation to invest in school buildings so that children are not 
exposed to leaking roofs and peeling paint. In the 104th Congress they 
attacked the school lunch program that keeps children well fed and 
their minds ready for learning. They cut education programs when they 
first took control over this body and only backed down when they heard 
an outcry of opposition from parents and voters. To make matters worse, 
they have paid little attention to the positive things going on in 
public schools across this country. In my district, the Harriet Tubman 
School in Newark is a perfect example of how our teachers, patents and 
students are turning things around. I refuse to give up on schools such 
as Harriet Tubman and implore my colleagues to not give up on similar 
schools in their district for vouchers that will tear down the notion 
of educational equality in this country. We must oppose this bill for 
the future of education in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The bill is considered as having been read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 288, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


              Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Etheridge

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Etheridge moves to recommit the bill to the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce with instructions to hold a 
     full, open, and fair hearing and markup on the bill before 
     reporting it to the full House for consideration.

                              {time}  1945

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. McCollum]. The gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Etheridge] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Is there a Member who claims opposition to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Etheridge].
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight as a dedicated education 
supporter and reformer to send this anti-public school bill back to 
committee. There is a right way and a wrong way to reform education in 
this country. It is absolutely wrong for the House to pass this voucher 
bill that sells out our children, our teachers, our public

[[Page H9963]]

schools, and the American taxpayer. Let me make it perfectly clear, it 
is wrong to take the taxpayers' money to subsidize private schools.
  Mr. Speaker, prior to my election to the people's House, I served two 
4-year terms as the elected State superintendent of the schools in my 
State. As school chief, I fought to improve, strengthen, and reform 
public schools so that every child would have the opportunity to live 
up to his or her God-given ability. I am tremendously proud of the 
record of accomplishment of the students, teachers, parents, and the 
entire community as they achieved improved performance in education.
  Earlier this year, the respected NAEP came out, the National 
Assessment of Education Progress, and documented their successes. North 
Carolina's eighth-graders gained 18 points over the last 6 years on 
NAEP. That is more than twice the national average. Our fourth-graders 
gained almost three times the national average. North Carolina students 
have improved the equivalent of one full grade level during the decade. 
In other words, eighth-graders this year were one full year ahead of 
eighth-graders in 1990. That is the kind of improved public schools 
that the American people are demanding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been honored to have the opportunity to cochair 
the Democratic Caucus' Educational Task Force to develop a consensus 
for first class public schools. That proposal includes early childhood 
development for every child so that they will come to the public 
schools ready to learn; to recruit and train well-qualified teachers; 
to relieve our schools, which are crumbling and overcrowded, so 
children will have places to learn; ensure our public schools are safe 
and drug-free; and empower parents to choose the very best public 
schools for their children.
  This agenda will work to improve public education for all children. 
Unfortunately, the bill before us tonight takes a headlong rush in the 
opposite direction. Instead of strengthening public schools, this bill 
represents a wholesale retreat from our national commitment to quality 
public schools.
  This bill is a shameful act of cowardice. We must not turn our backs 
on the schoolchildren of America. Taking taxpayers' money to fund 
private schools is wrong. This bill is bad education policy. It is not 
even about education, this bill is about politics. This bill is about a 
cynical political agenda of some of the most extreme groups in this 
country. This bill is about dressing up an ideological agenda in a 
package of sound bites. This bill is about robbing our schools of 
precious resources needed to provide for quality education for all of 
our children.
  Mr. Speaker, the legacy of this revolutionary majority in Congress 
has been one attack after another on our public schools. The previous 
Congress tried to abolish the Education Department, slash school 
lunches, and eliminate school loans. A few weeks ago a Member in the 
majority party even compared our public schools to the Communist 
legacy.
  Mr. Speaker, I sought this office because I could not stand by and 
watch this Congress of the United States continue to launch attack 
after attack on our public schools. This bill is nothing but an 
ultimate attempt to scapegoat our schools, our teachers, our students, 
and our parents, and yes, their communities. Putting taxpayers' money 
in private schools is wrong.
  I believe the American people want basic things: a strong national 
defense to keep our Nation free; safe streets and communities in which 
to live, work, and raise a family; an educated work force to keep us 
strong in an increasingly competitive global economy; and a public 
education system that provides each and every child the opportunity to 
make the most of his or her God-given ability. We must work to 
strengthen public school, not turn our backs on the public schools.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to recommit 
this bill, this underhanded attack on our public schools.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman who just spoke that we have 
held field hearings in Milwaukee and Cleveland and in New York City 
with virtually little, if any, participation by Democratic Members of 
this House. I suspect one reason those hearings were boycotted is 
because Democratic Members did not want to hear the overwhelming 
support from parents in those communities for expanded parental choice, 
such as the HELP Scholarship bill would permit. We have had hearings 
here in Washington as well, and we have had field hearings in San 
Fernando, CA, and in Phoenix on expanded public school choice through 
charter schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I thank very much the experience shared by my colleague who just 
spoke. I would say to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Etheridge], if North Carolina or any State does not want to use these 
opportunity scholarships, there is a simple answer. They do not have to 
under this bill. It is up to them.
  I want to read a quote from Jonathan Rauch, who was writing in the 
November 10th New Republic. I think it is applicable to the debate 
today.
  ``It's hard to get excited about improving rich suburban high schools 
that act as feeders for Ivy League colleges. However, for poor children 
trapped in execrable schools, the case is moral rather than merely 
educational. These kids attend schools which cannot protect their 
physical safety, much less teach them. To require poor people to go to 
dangerous, dysfunctional schools that better-off people fled years ago, 
and that better-off people would never tolerate for their own 
children--all the while intoning pieties about `saving' public 
education--is worse than unsound public policy. It is repugnant public 
policy.''
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to take head on this question about 
public schools, because I represent a district which is very lucky.
  Cobb County Public Schools are very, very good. There is a recent 
report out on the best high schools in Georgia, and two-thirds of them 
are in my district. They are in North Fulton, a fabulous area, growing 
rapidly. They are in Gwinnett County, a tremendous county, growing 
rapidly. They are in Cherokee County, one of the fastest growing 
counties in the State of Georgia.
  When people of good income come to Georgia, and they move in looking 
for a job, and they look around, again and again they will say to the 
real estate agent, now, what counties have a good school? Where can I 
go to get a good school? And they will move into a good public school 
area.
  I think that is wonderful. We are very lucky, and both of my 
daughters had a chance to go to the Carrollton Public Schools in 
Carrollton, Georgia, and they were terrific public schools. That is 
wonderful. This bill does not do a single thing to weaken those public 
schools. This bill does not take a penny away from those public 
schools.
  If Members do not want to send their children to public school, and 
they are rich, they can just send them to private school. Maybe it is a 
nearby private school, maybe it is a distant private school, maybe it 
is a boarding school. They should take care of their kids.
  That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is not about 
people who can move into Cobb County and buy a nice, fancy house, or 
move into North Fulton or move into Gwinnett or move into Cherokee. 
Those folks are going to schools that are terrific. They are going to 
keep their kids in public school. This bill is about the child who is 
trapped in New York City or Philadelphia or Atlanta, the child who is 
trapped in Washington, D.C.
  I read the numbers. After all the talk about reform and all the talk 
about help, how can Members of this House in good conscience trap a 
child in a school where, when you have been there in the tenth grade, 
89 percent of the children score below the grade level? How can Members 
live with their consciences, saying, oh, if you are well enough off, 
move out to Virginia or move out to Maryland? If you are rich enough, 
send

[[Page H9964]]

your kids to a private, elite school, like many powerful politicians 
do? But now if you are poor and you are in public housing, and you have 
no money, and you are trapped in a school where you know that, 
literally, the longer your child stays in that school, the more likely 
they are to score below grade level, now, oh, we in the Congress are 
not going to take care of those kids.
  I do not understand it. I do not understand how Members can walk off 
and leave a generation of children behind and offer them no hope.
  Let me remind Members, what this amendment does is simple. It says 
that the State legislature has the option, it does not have to do it, 
the option, in a State that has a school system that is failing to 
offer the poorest children in the State, the weakest children in the 
State, to give the children with the least background an opportunity to 
go to a school with discipline, with learning, that is drug-free, and 
the difference is the difference between prison and college, the 
difference between pursuing happiness and being trapped in jail.
  I would beg Members to look into their hearts, do not be afraid of 
the unions, do not be afraid of the bureaucrats, do not be afraid of 
the power structure; to look into their hearts, think about those 
children, and then vote to give them a chance to have a decent future.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. 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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of passage.
  Without objection, the vote on the first suspension motion 
immediately thereafter will be reduced to a minimum of 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 203, 
nays 215, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 568]

                               YEAS--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     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
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     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
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--215

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     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
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     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
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barcia
     Coburn
     Cubin
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Holden
     McDade
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Payne
     Porter
     Riley
     Schiff
     Slaughter
     Towns

                              {time}  2017

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Slaughter for, with Mr. Riley against.

  Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. BOEHLERT, and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BENTSEN, DAVIS of Illinois, MARKEY, REYES, and Mrs. MALONEY 
of New York changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. McCollum]. The question is on the 
passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 191, 
nays 228, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 569]

                               YEAS--191

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth

[[Page H9965]]


     Christensen
     Coble
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--228

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Ackerman
     Coburn
     Cubin
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Holden
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Payne
     Porter
     Riley
     Schiff
     Slaughter
     Towns

                              {time}  2025

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Riley for, with Mr. Porter against.

  Mr. WALSH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________