[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H367-H373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE FUTURE OPPORTUNITY AND WELL-BEING OF OUR CHILDREN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to address 
the House under special orders on a topic that I think is of really 
paramount importance to our country, and that is the future opportunity 
and well-being of our children. I rise to talk today a little bit about 
our congressional, by that I mean House and Senate, Republican agenda 
for improvement of our schools, to ensure that every American child, 
especially those that come from disadvantaged back-
grounds, socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, has access to a 
high quality education and the kind of skills training that can unlock 
the future for that young person.
  I have had the opportunity on many occasions, as many of the Members 
of this House have, to have my children accompany me to work sort of a 
dad takes daughter to work day. I have had my young daughter Sarah 
Anne, who is 11, going on 21, I think, at times, with me here on the 
House floor. And it has been a wonderful experience. It has given her 
an opportunity to see firsthand what I do as an elected Member of 
Congress. It has helped her not only better understand what I do, but 
it has helped her, I think, become a more responsible young person in 
her upbringing.
  I can harken back a few years ago, when I first was elected to 
Congress, and the Sarah who is now in the fifth grade back then was in 
the second grade. And on the first day of school as the boys and girls 
were going around the classroom, when it came her turn to say what mom 
and dad do for a living, she piped up very proudly, my dad is Frank 
Riggs. He runs for Congress. Well, as they say, out of the mouths of 
babes. Since then, as I mentioned, she has come to have a far better 
understanding of what I do and what the purpose is of the Congress as 
our National Legislature.
  I think our primary purpose, our most important objective has got to 
be,

[[Page H368]]

as I said before, the future of our children. They are all our 
children. They are, they represent our hopes, our dreams, our common 
mission. I am here today out of concern for, addressing the House under 
special orders out of concern for her future and the future of her 
generation, and for that matter a generation of children yet unborn.
  I want to talk about how the children of tomorrow can receive a 
better education today and what we might do in the remaining months of 
this legislative session of Congress over the course of this year, 
between now and the targeted final adjournment of this Congress in 
early October.
  But before I get into that, as I was talking about my daughter Sarah 
Anne, I also harken back to my days as a local Little League and school 
board president. I had the dubious distinction of serving in both 
capacities at the same time, and I like to tell my colleagues that if 
they really want to know what politics are all about, they should try 
being both a Little League president and a school board president at 
the same time.
  There is an old saying that was, I believe, coined by a former 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, who said that all 
politics are local, and it does not get any more local than being 
Little League president and school board president at the same time.
  So I sort of jokingly have made that statement, but quite seriously, 
if you want to know what politics are all about, forget about matters 
of war and peace and life and death, which we sometimes have to 
confront out on the House floor, and try dealing with the 
responsibilities of being Little League president and school board 
president at the same time and a constituency of many, many parents who 
do not at all times necessarily agree with the official positions of a 
little league or a school board.
  I can say though that that experience has taught me that there is 
that shared concern about children. Everyone is concerned about their 
own children obviously, and there is a larger concern that many times 
extends to all children in the community, and while I personally do not 
agree with the philosophy that it takes a village to raise a child, 
because that seems to shift the responsibility for raising that child 
from the parents, the immediate family, to a larger and more amorphous 
institution known as a community or a village, and too often puts the 
trust and responsibility for raising children in government instead of 
where it properly belongs with those parents in that particular home, I 
can again say that we all have concerns about our children and want to 
create obviously a better future for our children. That is what brings 
us together as concerned citizens and as leaders in our respective 
communities, whether it be a position of elected leadership or whether 
it be some other position of leadership as perhaps through civic 
affairs or business involvement.
  I am going to talk a little bit about our children. The first thing I 
want to address since there is some very real concern about the future 
of Social Security, the first thing I want to mention is that this 
Congress over the course of last year and the previous Congress, which 
represent about 3\1/2\ years to date of a Republican control of the 
Congress, this Congress and the past Congress have made some tremendous 
strides in creating a better future for our children and fulfilling our 
promises to the American people. We have adopted a balanced budget, and 
as the President told the country the other night in his State of the 
Union address, we are on the verge of realizing that goal, and we are 
really on the verge of seeing the Federal Government for the 
foreseeable future generating a budget surplus, not a budget deficit, a 
budget surplus here in Washington. In fact, the current trend line 
projections for the Federal budget indicate surpluses, not deficits, 
surpluses as far as the eye can see. That is very encouraging news, and 
we are going to have a debate that will commence this year and continue 
again for the foreseeable future in terms of how to best utilize that 
budget surplus.
  We have lowered taxes, especially through a $500-per-child tax credit 
for hard-working, overburdened families, families, the median family 
income tax burden in America today being roughly 38 percent of that 
family's income, 38 percent going to taxing authorities at all levels, 
Federal, State and local. We have taken the first steps again to lower 
the tax burden on families, especially families with dependent 
children, under the theory that those families deserve to keep more of 
what they earn, and they are in a far better position to determine how 
to spend that money to benefit or to benefit their children and to 
create a better future for their children than any Federal Government 
bureaucracy back here in Washington.
  We have also overhauled welfare. That reform is helping millions of 
our fellow Americans move from welfare to work. Many of those are 
single mothers that struggle against heroic odds, and by improving the 
quality of life for welfare recipients as they make that transition 
from welfare to work, we are also obviously creating a better future 
for the children of those households.
  But we do have a long ways to go in terms of improving the future for 
our children. I mentioned briefly education reform. But we also are 
looking now at fundamental reform of the Tax Code. In my view, we have 
to have campaign finance reform at the Federal level because if we 
really want to change the way we govern, we have to change the way we 
campaign for office.
  And we need entitlement reform or reform of the entitlement programs, 
the so-called old age entitlement programs of Social Security and 
Medicare, if we want to make sure that those programs are preserved and 
strengthened; that is to say, to make sure that they are financially 
solvent well into the 21st century.

                              {time}  1500

  Now, House and Senate Republicans do have a real plan for Social 
Security, and I make reference to a commentary that was written in the 
Washington Times by Senator Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader, and 
he points out in this article that we are attempting to bring about 
fundamental restructuring of the Social Security program. His 
commentary begins by saying the President says he wants to talk about 
Social Security.
  Talking is the easy part. Doing the right thing is another matter. 
Let us review the Clinton record. For 5 years the President has talked 
about entitlement reform, but almost all progress has come from a 
congressional coalition of Republicans and centrist Democrats. True, 
the President passed incremental Medicare and Medicaid changes in 1993, 
but unlike our more recently enacted reforms, his bill made no attempt 
at structural spending changes; in other words, fundamental overhaul of 
these programs, and instead relied on raising taxes to temporarily 
shore up those programs.
  In 1994, the President proposed, as I think we all now know, a 
Federal Government, a big government takeover of health care. Setting 
aside the obvious demerits of subjecting one-seventh of the economy to 
government price controls, his plan would have created massive new 
entitlements and accelerated government spending. At the same time, 
however, the bipartisan Entitlement Commission, chaired by Democratic 
Senator Robert Kerrey, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, concluded that the 
present spending trends for the old age entitlement programs, Social 
Security and Medicare, are unsustainable.
  The President ignored the Entitlement Commission and its chairman, 
but the newly elected Republican congressional majority did not. We 
passed structural Medicare and Medicaid reforms in 1995, only to have 
them be vetoed and demagogued by the President.
  The White House's demagoguery was supplemented, as we now know, by 
tens of millions of dollars in union-funded attack ads that were 
targeted at incumbent Republicans around the country, including myself 
in the 1996 elections and, unfortunately, made Medicare a partisan 
campaign issue in 1996 and turned it into just another political 
football, another partisan ``he said, she said'' type of argument. 
However, 1 year later, in a nonelection year, last year, 1997, the 
President signed reforms that were very similar to the ones that he had 
vetoed and demagogued for over a year. He signed similar reforms into 
law.
  Now, early last year both a Federal commission and Alan Greenspan 
concluded that the Consumer Price Index

[[Page H369]]

overstates increases in the cost of living by about 1 percent. Senator 
Lott then proposed appointing a panel of technical experts to correct 
these flaws. However, again, the President and many congressional 
Democrats, backed by the labor unions and some of their other special 
interest allies, refused to address this problem, reinforcing this 
impression out there, this stereotype, that entitlement reform 
continues to be the third rail of American politics; that if one goes 
anywhere near it as an elected official they just might get 
electrocuted, in a political sense that is.
  Last year the other body, the Senate, passed historic Medicare 
reforms, including raising the Medicare eligibility age and means 
testing premiums for more wealthy beneficiaries. And, in my view, they 
deserve a lot of credit for those actions. They also demonstrated a 
bipartisan willingness to make politically difficult choices in the 
interest of our children and in the name of their future.
  U.S. News and World Report called it the Senate's magic moment and 
wondered whether the President would get on board. Well, the news that 
I share with my colleagues and the American people today is the 
President never even got near the boat.
  Now, we do have a newly created Medicare commission, which was 
originally supposed to report in early 1999 to the Congress. To avoid 
having to address Medicare in the State of the Union address, next 
year's State of the Union address, the White House has proposed that 
the commission postpone their report to March. That would mean, if that 
comes to pass, that the President has ducked yet another opportunity to 
really exert presidential leadership and make a difficult choice on 
this most vexing issue.
  Medicare is the second largest entitlement, and it will grow $88 
billion over the next 5 years, more than total Federal Government 
spending, more than total Federal taxpayer spending on crime, education 
and the environment combined. Yet the President proposes what we feel 
is a tremendously irresponsible expansion of the Medicare program for 
early retirees and refuses to allow seniors to use their own money to 
pay a doctor.
  Of course, he knows in making that proposal, which he mentioned last 
Tuesday night, or a week ago Tuesday night in his State of the Union 
address, he knows that that expansion will be popular because he is 
offering a political goody, another entitlement, if you will, to a 
demographic group with a high voter turnout; upper income people in 
their 50s and 60s, who could afford to retire early and buy into the 
Medicare program.
  His proposal, however, would benefit only the wealthiest 
beneficiaries and would encourage employers to dump older workers and 
early retirees into a government program.
  So in the name of entitlement reform, the President raised tax 
employees to reduce the deficit, ignored the entitlement commission, he 
has demagogued both Medicare and Medicaid, he has refused to consider 
the Senate bipartisan proposal to fix the Consumer Price Index problem 
which overstates the annual rate of inflation, he has rejected the 
bipartisan Medicare beneficiaries reforms, and he has now delayed the 
Medicare commission. That is not true presidential leadership.
  On top of all that, he now proposes to expand the second largest 
entitlement program, yet says he wants to reform the largest. He 
proposes to expand Medicare at the same time he is talking about 
reforming Social Security. Why should the American people believe him? 
And I am going to have more to say later on the President's 
trustworthiness.
  So we have a tremendous challenge ahead in terms of entitlement 
reform. It is one of the chief pieces of unfinished business in this 
Congress and, in my view, will be probably confronting the next 
Congress, when we consider that just over the horizon, the challenge 
that lies just over the horizon, 75 million baby boomers will begin 
retiring around 2008.
  That happens to be my generation. I admit it. I am one of the baby 
boomers. We have to address this problem and we have to adjust our 
programs for the aging, the graying of the American population. If we 
fail to do that, then these programs which constitute the social safety 
net in America are, in my view, in real jeopardy, especially for those 
who are most dependent upon these programs in their retirement, low 
income individuals, many of whom have to rely on a fixed income to make 
ends meet.
  So the challenge for this Congress, and it is a bipartisan challenge, 
is how can we convince the President that we are willing to tackle 
Social Security and Medicare reform on a serious and, I would 
hope, nonpartisan basis. We have the proposals out on the table. And as 
Senator Lott, Majority Leader in the Senate, points out, we really do 
need to have, and as Speaker Gingrich has said, we really do need to 
have an adult conversation about reforming and preserving Social 
Security in this country.

  We believe that Americans want more than talk; that they have a right 
to expect more than talk from their elected officials when it comes to 
entitlement reform, and that the onus is now on the President to close 
this enormous credibility gap that is created by the discrepancy 
between what he says on the one hand and what he has done on the other 
with respect to entitlement reform, because, as we all know, actions 
speak louder than words.
  So entitlement reform is a critical issue facing this country. We 
also know that the time has come to make a commitment to fundamentally 
reforming the Tax Code. The current Federal income tax system is 
economically destructive. It is inconsistent with the principles of a 
free society, and many of us are joining together in this Congress to 
work towards the enactment of a new, simple and fairer system that 
would apply a single low rate of taxes to all Americans. We want to 
move from the present system of taxation to a simpler, flatter, fairer 
Tax Code and tax system and a single rate of taxation for all 
Americans.
  We want to continue to provide tax relief for working Americans. And 
when we consider all the abuses that have come to light from recent 
hearings here in Washington and the hearings that many of us have had 
in our congressional districts around the country, we want to protect, 
do a better job of protecting the rights of taxpayers against tax 
collection abuses by the IRS.
  I also believe, going back to the theme and the importance of 
creating a better future for our children, that we have to eliminate 
the bias in our present Tax Code against savings and investment. It is 
one of the perverse incentives that riddles American life when we 
consider that we have a Tax Code and a tax system that continues to 
promote consumption and spending over savings and investment. If we can 
eliminate that bias, if in fact we can emphasize savings and 
investment, we can reduce the tremendous strain that is going to be 
placed on those old age entitlement, the old age retirement programs, 
the Social Security and Medicare that I just mentioned a moment ago, 
when the baby boomer generation reaches retirement age.
  So tax reform, entitlement reform, campaign finance reform, education 
reform are all critical in terms of the challenges facing this Congress 
and future Congresses as we look at the future and try to create more 
opportunity and more security for our young people.
  I think it is safe to say that congressional Republicans want to take 
this country to a new level of freedom and opportunity through less 
taxes and more choices for families by improving our schools. And we 
are going to be looking at a number of educational proposals that are 
now pending before the Congress.
  I happen to chair the education subcommittee in the House of 
Representatives, the so-called Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth 
and Families, and we are moving forward on a number of fronts right 
now. We had a very successful legislative year last year, a very 
ambitious year, where we passed legislation to improve the education of 
children with learning disabilities and special needs, to expanding 
vocational education and technical training opportunities for those 
young people who are not college bound or who, if they go to college, 
may not complete college, so that they actually have employable skills 
that they can market in the real world of business and private 
enterprise.

[[Page H370]]

  We have passed legislation that will encourage States and local 
school districts to create more independent public schools. These are 
called charter schools. And this is a very simple concept where local 
schools, and by local I mean that individual school is given a great 
deal of freedom and autonomy to experiment in education and to make 
improvements and innovations.
  Charter schools are, to date, a very successful experiment in 
decentralization and deregulation in public education. And based on the 
early results, charter schools have led to an increase, an improvement 
in pupil performance at those charter schools. And that is really the 
bottom line.
  Charter schools are also a step, a milestone, I guess we could say, 
on the road to creating full parental choice in public education today. 
I happen to believe that parents should be given the full range of 
choice among all competing institutions; that parents, as the consumers 
of education, the people who pay the majority of taxes for public 
education, should be empowered to select the school and the education 
that is most appropriate for their child, and that no one is better 
positioned, better able to make that decision regarding that child's 
welfare and the schooling that is appropriate for that child than, 
obviously, the parent or parents of that child.
  I am encouraged that we are moving forward with charter school 
legislation. The Senate, the other body, has indicated that they are 
going to be taking up our charter school legislation in the context of 
their very comprehensive education plan, which they are calling the 
BOKS legislation, the Better Opportunities for our Kids and Schools 
Act, and the acronym, as I mentioned, is BOKS. So I am pleased that 
they are recognizing that Federal taxpayers and the Federal Government 
have a role in expanding charter schools.

                              {time}  1515

  I want to quote to my colleagues from an article in the Weekly 
Standard edition of December 8, 1997, in an article that was written by 
David Brooks, the senior editor of the Weekly Standard, where he says 
that,

       The early evidence suggests that these tax-supported 
     independent schools, charter schools, run by their own 
     boards, their own board of trustees, their own governing 
     board, within the public system raised student achievement. 
     Moreover, if the country is going to shift eventually to a 
     voucher system,

this is the idea where parents would have tuition scholarships through 
taxpayer funding to select the school, the education that is 
appropriate for their children.

  Moreover, if the country is going to shift eventually to a voucher 
system, it will first have to pass through a charter phase so that when 
choice prevails there will be a variety of independent schools to 
choose from. Charters can prove to the public that alternatives exist 
to a centralized system and so lay the intellectual groundwork for 
vouchers.

  So I am pleased again that we are going to be moving forward on 
charter school legislation over the coming months in the Second Session 
of Congress.
  However, charters are just one form of empowering parents through 
choice, just one way, if you will, of infusing competition and great 
accountability into the education system in America today.
  There are several other forms of education choice, including tax 
credits, as have been implemented in certain States. Minnesota, under 
Governor Carlson, immediately comes to mind.
  I mentioned tuition scholarships, or vouchers. We are going to be 
looking again at opportunity scholarships for underprivileged District 
of Columbia children here in the next few weeks, focusing specifically 
on those children who are attending unsafe and/or underperforming 
schools.
  And, of course, Senator Coverdell and Speaker Gingrich have also 
proposed the ideas of education savings accounts where parents could 
contribute after-tax dollars to an IRA, an Individual Retirement 
Account, for education purposes and then make withdrawals tax-free for 
any education expense, including education expenses associated with 
their child attending a private primary or secondary, a private 
elementary or high school. So we are moving forward aggressively on 
expanding educational choice in this country and empowering parents.
  Now, I do have a couple other things to mention in the area of 
education.
  I mentioned that House and Senate Republicans are working on a 
comprehensive measure to improve education that would allocate money to 
better train teachers and parents to teach reading.
  We are also looking at another pilot program for vouchers for low-
income students that would be patterned after our legislation for the 
District of Columbia but would potentially allow other school 
districts, primarily urban school districts, to pursue the idea of 
vouchers on a pilot basis to see if, in fact, those vouchers, those 
tuition scholarships, increase or improve pupil performance and give 
parents a way out of failing school districts.
  And I just cannot stress how important that is. Because I personally 
believe that our country could not afford to lose another generation of 
urban schoolchildren.
  So we are going to be pursuing a voucher pilot in school districts 
around the country.
  We mentioned charter schools. We are also looking at legislation that 
would require that the great majority of Federal taxpayer spending for 
education go down to the classroom level, down to that local school 
district, and from there to that individual school, and from there into 
the classroom, hopefully, to pay someone who knows that child's name.
  The idea is very simple. We want to get the most bang for the buck. 
We do not want the money continuing to be siphoned off for bureaucracy 
at the Federal or State or even, for that matter, local district school 
level. We want to drive it down locally into that classroom to pay 
someone who knows that child's name, under the theory that those 
dollars should follow the child. And, again, we are going to be looking 
at legislation that would test teachers' skills and provide them with 
merit pay raises.
  I personally believe that the teaching profession is a missionary 
calling. It is one, quite honestly, where I think that if we are honest 
and admit that we cannot afford to pay the very best teachers what they 
are truly worth and, conversely, anything that we pay to a bad teacher 
is probably too much. But I think we have to understand how important 
the teaching profession truly is.
  It has been said that a teacher can affect eternity because they 
never know where their influence on that child might end. So we are 
going to be looking at a way, again, where we can assist and enhance 
the teaching profession and where we can encourage more accountability 
and more incentive in the teaching profession.
  So we are moving forward on a number of fronts in education 
aggressively, making it the top legislative priority for the Republican 
congressional Majority.
  However, we are not going to do as the President has discussed, which 
is attempt to finance a bunch of new Federal education programs out of 
the future anticipated revenues resulting from a settlement of the 
tobacco class-action lawsuit against the States. It would be foolish. 
It would be unwise. It would be imprudent. It would be something that 
we would not do in our lives, in our homes or in our businesses, to 
spend money before we actually have it.
  Our education proposal will be fully paid for. It will not involve 
new Federal spending. It will not involve raising taxes. It will not 
rely on the presumed revenues from the tobacco settlement.
  We believe that one of the ways that we can pay for our education 
spending is to take all of these categorical programs that are housed 
back here in Washington, they are located primarily in the Department 
of Education, but they are spread, to be honest about it, spread about 
the whole Government bureaucracy, they are administered by a number of 
different Federal departments, agencies and commissions, and take those 
programs and consolidate them into a block grant to State and local 
school districts.
  The savings that result by reducing bureaucracy here in Washington 
can go a long ways towards helping to pay for

[[Page H371]]

education initiatives. So I want to make sure that I stress that our 
Federal education programs, as we prepare for a debate on the fiscal 
year 1999 Federal budget, we will be having a debate out here on the 
House floor in the coming weeks on a budget resolution, and once we 
adopt a budget resolution that sets the Federal spending limits for 
1999 fiscal year, we will then be debating the 13 annual spending bills 
for the Federal Government that effectively implement the Federal 
Government.
  But I want to emphasize that we are not going to go back to smoking 
mirrors budgeting. We are not going to rely on money that we do not 
have and may never
  receive here in Washington.
  In fact, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Majority Leader, 
who has been a real leader in education reform both in the Congress and 
in the District of Columbia public schools and in other States and 
communities around the country, a catalyst, a change agent for 
fundamental reform and improvement of our schools, he has said as 
recently as just a couple days ago something that kind of laid out the 
parameters for what the Republican congressional Majority will accept 
with respect to tobacco legislation.
  Majority Leader Armey said that the President wants to use the 
tobacco deal and about $65 billion in anticipated revenues that may not 
result from the tobacco deal, the tobacco class-action lawsuit 
settlement, as a cash cow, that is the Majority Leader's term, to pay 
for a sweeping array of domestic programs. And he made it very clear 
that we are not going to accept that position.
  The Majority Leader also said that if there is congressional action 
on tobacco legislation that it will be action to use the money for the 
correct and primary purpose of preventing teen smoking; it will be 
focused on prevention and cessation initiatives and on health care 
research. Because, after all, we have to remember that the tobacco 
class-action lawsuit filed by the States against the tobacco companies 
is to recover the cost that taxpayers in those States that both State 
and Federal taxpayers have incurred through spending on the Medicaid 
program for tobacco-related illnesses.
  So we want to put the money into teen smoking initiatives, anti-
smoking initiatives, and in biomedical research. And our health care 
initiatives, I believe, have tremendous bipartisan support as we 
concentrate more money through the National Institutes of Health on 
research into the causes and prevention of cancer-related illnesses.
  That is where we are going to spend the money. We are not going to go 
back into smoking mirrors budgeting and start making budgeting 
decisions over the coming year, over the coming months, that is 
predicated on the settlement of this lawsuit and the receipt of 
millions or billions of dollars to the Federal Treasury when, in fact, 
those funds may not materialize.
  Now, the other thing I want to say about the President's initiatives 
is, quite simply, that he seems well-intentioned. I do not doubt the 
President is sincere when he talks about trying to improve education, 
and I tend to agree with him that partisan politics ought to stop at 
the schoolhouse door when we talk about education and improving 
schools.
  However, I also hasten to add that the President seems to want to 
concentrate, when he talks about education, wants to concentrate more 
and more power and authority, more of the dollars and the decision-
making responsibility for education here in Washington. And I do not 
think that is the way to go; and I know that sentiment is shared by 
many, many of my fellow Republicans, my congressional colleagues, as 
well as many Republicans around the country.
  I do not think it makes sense at a time when we are trying to 
bootstrap improvement of our schools, at a time when we are trying to 
encourage more responsibility and accountability in education, which, 
after all, has to occur at the local level, right at that individual 
school site level, which, again, is keeping with the long-standing 
American tradition of local control and decentralized decision-making 
education. Given that, I do not think it makes sense to try to create 
more and more programs here in Washington and invest more and more 
authority in the United States Congress and in the Federal Government 
bureaucracy.
  It does not make sense to constantly nationalize and federalize these 
initiatives when, in fact, we ought to be working to reduce bureaucracy 
here in Washington in order to get more resources and more decision 
making authority out there to States and to the local school districts 
where it will do the most good.
  I do not think, whether we are talking about national testing, as we 
were debating on the House floor earlier today, or any other of the 
President's new education proposals, to turn the Congress of the United 
States into some sort of national school board.
  We want, again, to decentralize the funding and decision making in 
education. We respect the autonomy and the authority of that local 
school district.
  I am a former school board member myself, served 5 years on my 
hometown school board including two terms as a school board president. 
I have the greatest respect for those people who were there sort of on 
the front lines of education, if you will, and who are making those 
sort of policy decisions on a daily basis in their local communities. 
They also are far more accountable to the people who elected them, 
their constituents, than we could ever be.
  I go back to what I said earlier about serving as school board 
president and Little League president in the same year. I literally 
could not go anywhere in my home community, could not go into the 
corner grocery store without encountering a constituent. I was in the 
phone book. I was accessible.
  It is that accessibility that I think is paramount to improving the 
quality of education in America today by increasing the accountability 
that local school districts have to the ultimate consumers of 
education, parents and guardians.
  That is what we want to create here in Washington. We want a new 
education paradigm, a paradigm shift, if you will, where we shift the 
attention in education from the providers of education, the whole 
education establishment, to the consumers of education. Again, the best 
way to do that is to give those consumers the right to choose the 
education that is most appropriate and best suits their child.
  So I wanted to kind of quickly touch a little bit about where I see 
the Congress going.
  I mentioned the Social Security problem. That is a problem not just 
for the baby-boomers, as I mentioned in my remarks, but for the 
children of the baby-boomers, the so-called echo-boomers.
  Because if we do not take steps, obviously, to reform Social Security 
structure now well into the next century so it is solvent when the 
baby-boomer generation reaches retirement age, it obviously will cease 
to exist in subsequent years when the children of those baby-boomers, 
the echo-boomers, reach retirement age.
  So it is critically important we address education reform, tax 
reform, entitlement reform, and I would hope again entitlement reform.
  But as critical as all those issues are, I want to talk about one 
other issue in my special order. That is the importance of moral 
leadership in America today. Because everything that we might say or do 
from a policy standpoint pales to the personal example that we set as 
elected decision makers, as elected office holders.
  With the possible exception of the clergy, I do not think that there 
is a position of greater public trust than holding elective office. I 
am afraid that, too often, we have wandered away from that realization.
  I am pondering this today because, earlier today, this morning, we 
had the National Prayer Breakfast. While it appears that our country is 
sailing along on a polite course and enjoying peace and prosperity in a 
booming economy, underneath that veneer is a struggle going on for the 
soul of America. There is a moral crisis occurring that underscores the 
importance of ethical and moral leadership in America today.
  Again, I stress this because that leadership, that kind of ethical 
and moral leadership is what forms the bond, if you will, between 
elected officeholders and the people who really obviously have the true 
power in a representative democracy.

[[Page H372]]

                              {time}  1530

  I am very distressed about the events that have been occurring back 
in Washington over the last few weeks, and I have to say, as I turn to 
this subject, I have to say at the beginning that I cannot find the 
explanations that have been coming out of the White House, all the 
political advisers with their spin, lawyers, the First Lady, and even 
the President, I cannot find that orchestrated and concerted effort 
credible. It is not credible to me.
  When I look at the compelling, even overwhelming circumstantial 
evidence, with daily revelations, I have to conclude that the President 
has not leveled, has not been honest, with the American people, and I 
want to say quite sincerely that I think that deceit, that 
stonewalling, is jeopardizing the President's tenure, and I think 
really imperils his Presidency.
  I cannot for the life of me understand why the--and I said this a 
week ago when matters first came to light--I cannot understand for the 
life of me why the President has not stepped forward and put this 
matter to rest, addressed head on the allegations that have been 
swirling around, particularly if he was sincere and honest when he 
looked at the camera, stared at the American people in the face and 
said there was nothing to these particular allegations.
  In fact, I am looking at the President's quote from an article in 
Roll Call, which is the Capitol Hill newspaper from last Thursday, or 
Thursday, January 22, when he was asked by a reporter, you said in a 
statement today that you had no improper relationship with this intern. 
What exactly was the nature of your relationship with her?
  This is the President's verbatim answer: Well, let me say the 
relationship was not improper, and I think that is important enough to 
say. But because the investigation is going on and because I don't know 
what is out--what is going to be asked of me, I think I need to 
cooperate and answer the questions.
  Now, I couldn't agree more. Therefore, I cannot understand the 
deafening silence that is coming out of the White House.
  The President goes on to say, I think it is important for me to make 
it clear what it is not. And then at the appropriate time, I will try 
to answer what it is. But let me answer, it is not an improper 
relationship, and I know what the word means.
  I don't know when the appropriate time would be, but I don't think 
that the President and the country are well-served by continuing to 
stonewall and deny on this issue. I think the appropriate time for the 
President to address these allegations would have been at the outset of 
this whole controversy, when the allegations came to light. I can only 
conclude that by failing to address the allegations, which the 
President promised the American people he would do, that that then 
suggests that there is far more to this whole controversy than what the 
President has told the American people.
  Now, let me also make clear that this is not about some sort of 
sexual relations, in my view. This is all about lying and obstruction 
of justice. This is all about the fundamental responsibility, going 
back to that bond, if you will, that covenant, between the elected 
officeholder and the people that he or she represents, and in the case 
obviously of the President, that is all the American citizens, all 
American people. This is about, again, moral leadership and setting the 
right example and teaching our children and future generations through 
that example.
  I have to be honest and say again that I am really dismayed by this 
controversy and concerned that with every passing day there is a real 
problem, a real potential, rather, that this country may become 
paralyzed by this particular scandal or controversy, and that it could 
then potentially impede the ability of this body, the United States 
Congress, to carry out its very important work in facing the challenges 
that confront us as a country as we try again to create that better 
future with more opportunity for our children.
  Now, this is another Capitol Hill publication called The Hill, dated 
January 28th, and I want to share these words, because I think it 
underscores the magnitude of what we are talking about here.
  It goes on to say, ``Even if the,'' and they use the term ``Arkansas 
Houdini,'' ``Even if the President escapes from his latest crisis and 
serves out his second term, the Clinton presidency as we have known it 
is over. His undeniable character flaws, which his family and friends 
and the voters have been willing to turn a blind eye to in the past, 
are now glaringly obvious, and have cost him dearly in terms of the 
moral leadership and public trust that are a President's greatest 
asset.
  ``Americans are willing to forgive their elected officials almost any 
sin as long as they tell the truth.''
  We cannot countenance not telling the truth. We cannot countenance 
lying and deceit and stonewalling and covering up. We cannot do that, 
because if we do that, we destroy the fundamental trust between the 
elected office holders and the American people, and we contribute to 
this widespread cynicism and apathy in American society when it comes 
to political participation and making your voice heard and your vote 
count.
  It contributes to this alienation and distance that too many American 
people feel from their government, their representative government, and 
their elected representation.
  The Hill goes on to say, ``We do not believe that President Clinton 
has done that in the present case, and we don't know if he will or is 
enable to, without exposing himself to charges of perjury. As a result, 
he must explain and justify the all too human failings that he managed 
to conceal from the American people, even as he has persuaded them to 
entrust him with the highest office in the land.
  ``Until he does that, it will be impossible for him to exert the kind 
of moral leadership that is the true mark of Presidential character. As 
it is, he has forfeited the right to expect the American people to cut 
him any more slack. He has,'' and these are The Hill's words now, this 
publication, ``He has disgraced and degraded the Presidency and 
betrayed his family and friends, his party and his country. His legacy 
is now uncertain and his journey across that bridge to the 21st Century 
is fraught with peril.''
  And it is fraught with peril, because I also harken to the words of a 
very respected political commentator and widely syndicated columnist, 
David Broder, who wrote in the Washington Post on January 21, ``The 
controversy surrounding the President is especially disturbing and 
potentially dangerous, because international affairs are slipping from 
his control. Saddam Hussein's defiance of U.S. policy and UN weapons 
inspection teams is becoming more brazen,'' although I do believe since 
Mr. Broder wrote these words that in large part, because of the 
Republican leadership of the Congress rallying to the President's side, 
we have been able to bring Hussein more into check.
  Broder goes on to write, ``After the rebuff Congress handed President 
Clinton last year by denying him Fast Track trade authority, he faces a 
difficult struggle for approval of the funds he wants to commit to 
stabilizing troubled Asian economist, and Bosnia looks more and more 
like a place that will keep U.S. and NATO forces he enmeshed for 
years.''

  I do not necessarily agree with his take on world events, but I think 
his primary point is that we have a number of potential flash points 
around the globe, we have these brush fires that could really heat up 
and become a conflagration in different parts of the world, and we need 
a President who can exert his Presidency and use his bully pulpit to 
the fullest. To do that, again, he has to have, as The Hill suggested, 
the moral leadership and the public trust.
  So I am profoundly disturbed by what has been going on and the fact 
that, from all appearances, this is going to become a typical 
Washington scandal, where the President is going to try to hang on as 
long as possible, attempting to basically divert public attention from 
this particular issue, rather than, again, confront the truth and level 
with the American people, because I just do not find him, again, 
believable or credible when he looked at the American people, looked 
that camera in the eye, and denied any relations with this young 21 
year old intern.

[[Page H373]]

  The other fundamental question here is, really, doesn't America 
deserve better? I really believe the American people deserves better 
leadership than what we have had from the President, and the only way 
we can get that particular leadership is, again, for the President to 
level and tell the truth.
  The truth is really paramount. This is an article that was in the San 
Diego Union Tribune back in December, and it was a column that says, 
``Give a child integrity for Christmas.'' And it talks about the sense 
of integrity is the most important gift that we can give our children. 
So how do we teach them?
  Then it goes on to quote a Professor of Ethics at the University of 
San Diego by the name of Larry Hinman who says that he thinks about 
this question a lot, and certainly it has been on my mind constantly in 
recent days.
  Professor Hinman says he struggles every day to teach integrity to 
his 5 year old daughter. Then it quotes him as saying, ``If I talk 
about integrity with my child and don't practice it, I will actually 
undermine her sense of integrity, so I try to practice what I preach. 
If I tell her no shouting, I try my best to follow my own mandate, and 
I don't shout. Keeping promises to her is also a part of integrity. She 
always remembers if I make a promise, and if I don't deliver, she is 
quick to point it out.''
  So I really believe that, again, particularly to those of us who hold 
a position of public trust, that we should be held to a higher 
standard, and the only way that we can meet or even exceed that 
standard, is to try to demonstrate integrity and honesty in our every 
deed and in all our words.
  Again, I hope that this somehow this particular matter can be 
resolved, but I worry that we are, by perhaps turning a blind eye, by 
going along with the political spin, we are sending exactly, precisely, 
the wrong message to our young people about the importance of honesty, 
integrity and moral leadership. We have got to, as a Nation, if we want 
to I think really rediscover, or recover, our greatness and fulfill our 
destiny as the greatest Nation in the history of the world, as the 
leader of the world as we enter the 21st Century, we have got to 
rediscover basic American values like honesty, integrity and morality, 
and we have to regain really a sense of moral outrage when people play 
fast and loose with the truth.
  So, again, this morning we had the National Prayer Breakfast back 
here in Washington, and this is actually a sermon that was published in 
the paper earlier this week by an Episcopalian priest or minister in 
Falls Church, in Northern Virginia, just across the Potomac River.
  In this sermon he said, ``Let us pray this week that at the National 
Prayer Breakfast, that our leaders would experience a spiritual and 
moral renewal, whereby they aspire to the stature of a monarch whose 
highest concern is obedience to God and the well-being of our Nation; 
that they would be men and women who would have the courage to refuse 
to speak anything other than the truth.''
  He goes on to say, and I think this is really the most important 
lesson we can teach our children as they develop character, as they 
begin to realize the importance of personal integrity and honesty in 
all of their words and actions, he goes on to say, ``Truth matters. 
Truth matters, and character matters. It matters for the well-being of 
our Nation. One day all truth will be revealed when we stand at the 
final judgment of God, and those who have the courage to walk in and 
speak the truth now will not be ashamed at that final day. Whatever is 
true, St. Paul says, think on that. The truth, Jesus said, will free 
us. The truth matters in the lives of our children, our homes, at 
church, and in Washington.''
  I submit to my colleagues if it matters in your house, it certainly 
ought to matter in the White House.

                          ____________________