[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 HELPING EMPOWER LOW-INCOME PARENTS [HELP] SCHOLARSHIPS AMENDMENTS OF 
                                  1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 4, 1997

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address 
the comments made earlier in this debate by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez]. I would refer the House to the Record on 
this matter, for the gentleman misquoted my remarks and blatantly 
mischaracterized by comments which were clearly made in support of 
competitive schools and free-market economics.
  Observations previously expressed by me on the House floor were 
obviously directed at those Government-owned schools which are 
absolutely terrified by school choice. Without question, this excludes 
the majority of education institutions in America today which embrace 
competition and are competitive. In fact, they compete very well. I 
would suggest the gentleman visit Colorado and see for himself how 
charter schools, intradistrict choice, and post-secondary enrollment 
options have resulted in more opportunities for schoolchildren. Perhaps 
these kinds of schools exist in his State too.
  Mr. Speaker, never have I equated America's public schools with a 
Communist legacy, as the gentleman from California suggested. In fact, 
I have never before mentioned both in one speech.
  Any comments I have made regarding Government monopolies were plainly 
an indication that centrally planned economies found in other countries 
are models of failure. In fact the Communist legacy was a failure 
because that party's economic policies guaranteed mediocrity. The 
purpose of this observation was also plainly meant as a warning to 
avoid allowing our Federal Government to trample on our federalist 
traditions and restrain competitiveness with respect to educating 
children.
  Quite the contrary, our Government should resist such tendencies of 
some bureaucracies to limit competition and establish monopolies. That 
was the clear point of my speech which was properly received by the 
majority of our colleagues.
  It is regrettable that anyone would misinterpret these remarks as 
anything other than an admonition against Government monopolies and in 
favor of competitive schools which again constitute the vast majority 
of American institutions.
  I hereby reaffirm my strong support for a thriving public education 
system. I restate my rejection of increased Federal intrusion in local 
school settings, and I fully approve of the innovations in public 
education that are improving education qualify for America's 
schoolchildren.
  Mr. Speaker, we should resent any suggestions to the contrary and 
regard them as malicious in intent, certainly reckless in use. At these 
times, we do well to call upon the faculties of statesmanship and honor 
than invective.
  The American people demand full and honest debate by their 
Representative in Congress, on the topics which matter most. Useful 
dialog should be encouraged through intellectual discourse, not 
suppressed by partisan sniping, as is the effect of the 
mischaracterizations made by the gentleman from California.
  Our devotion, instead should be toward the American children who have 
a right to expect first-rate learning opportunities. Perhaps today's 
lesson is one on the difference between statesmanship and imprudence.

                          ____________________