[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1151-H1156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           REPUBLICAN AGENDA

  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 thank our leadership for 
designating me as the person representing our leadership and House 
Republicans during this special order. The very first thing I want to 
do is compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson, who 
preceded me to the well for his very, very incisive remarks on the 
global warming theory, particularly when we get so much ``chicken 
little'' hysteria on environmental issues back here in Washington that 
are not always supported by very sound science. I thank him for his 
comments today. I join with him in his efforts.
  I also wanted to take the floor to address the House during this 
special order because just a couple of days ago the President accused 
congressional Republicans, since we are the majority party and we do 
have a responsibility for governing the legislative branch of 
government and the country, to accuse us of being a do-nothing 
Congress, specifically with respect to his proposals.
  So I would like to challenge his comments, I do not think they should 
go unchallenged or that we should allow them to stand without a 
rebuttal, and try to put things in context for my colleagues; and to, 
and for, frankly, our fellow Americans who might be viewing or 
listening to this debate.
  First of all, with respect to the President's new education 
proposals, let me assure my colleagues that we Republicans in the 
Congress have our own agenda. It focuses on common-sense reform, not 
creating more bureaucracy back here in Washington, not funding a host 
of new Federal programs and regulations with your hard-earned tax 
dollars.
  We would prefer, we Republicans would prefer to focus on parental 
involvement and parental choice in education. We understand that the 
key to improving education in America today is to empower parents to 
choose the education and the schooling that is most appropriate, that 
they deem most appropriate for their child. We understand that 
empowering parents through greater choice in education is the only way 
really to make our education system more competitive and, therefore, 
more accountable. It is called ``bootstrap improvement'' because 
empowering parents, giving parents more choice, and I favor giving 
parents the full range of choice among all competing institutions, 
public, private or parochial, that has been my position even before I 
was elected to Congress and certainly before last year when I assumed 
the chairmanship of the education subcommittee in the House.
  I personally believe that empowering parents to choose the school and 
education that is appropriate for their child is the only way to make 
schools more accountable. However, that involves what we would call a 
paradigm shift. That involves shifting the focus in education from the 
providers of education, the whole education establishment, including 
the very powerful teachers' unions, shifting the focus from them, the 
providers of education, to parents, the consumers of education.
  We are working hard to do that here in Washington. We are working 
hard to help working families and stay-at-home mothers.
  With respect to the President's child care proposal, he wants to put 
more and more emphasis on institutionalized, that is to say ``outside 
the home,'' child care, especially for families where both parents 
work. We Republicans believe that as a matter of government policy and 
in terms of spending again your hard-earned tax dollars, we should not 
favor institutionalized day care. We should not, as a matter of policy, 
almost discriminate against families where one parent chooses to stay 
at home in order to be there for the children, in order to provide the 
children with the additional care and nurturing that they need during 
their early or all-important formative years. In fact, we think that, 
again with respect to child care, the President's emphasis is in the 
wrong place, that we ought to reverse his emphasis and put more 
emphasis on helping families keep more of what they earn so that both 
parents do not necessarily feel compelled to work outside the home in 
order to be able to meet the needs, the financial needs of that family.
  With respect to education, we also want to drive more money down to 
the local level. We would prefer that at least, at least 90 cents of 
every Federal taxpayer dollar for education, every dollar that you send 
to Washington that is earmarked for Federal education purposes and 
programs, we would like to ensure that at least 90 cents of every 
dollar go back down to the local level, ideally to the classroom to pay 
someone who actually knows that child's name, who works with that child 
on a daily basis, rather than continue to use it to build more 
bureaucracy back here in Washington.

                              {time}  1615

  That only leads to concentrating more power, more money, more 
decision-making in Washington as we Federalize education and move 
further and

[[Page H1152]]

further away from the long-standing American tradition in public 
education of local control and local decision-making.
  Now, I specifically want to challenge the President's assertion the 
other day that this has been a do-nothing Congress, or that we are at 
risk of falling into that mode. Nothing could be further from the 
truth.
  It would be wonderful to have the opportunity to actually debate the 
President or some high-ranking official in his administration, because 
the truth of the matter is that last year we passed more than a dozen 
common sense education proposals either through the Congress, through 
the House, which are now pending in the Senate; or through the Congress 
which were vetoed by the President; or, in a few cases, legislation 
that we were actually able to pass through the Congress and convince 
the President to sign into law.
  But we now have proposals pending in a number of areas. We have a 
reading excellence bill that was passed by the House of Representatives 
and is now pending in the other body, which is how we are supposed to 
refer to the Senate, that provides literacy grants for parents.
  We have a job training bill and a vocational education and technical 
training bill for young people that focuses on young people who are not 
college-bound or who, if they go to college, will not complete college, 
so that those young people can hopefully get the education and job 
skills that they need to take advantage of this knowledge-based economy 
and all of the unfilled information technology jobs in this economy 
that pay a living wage. I will have more to say on that in just a 
moment.
  We did pass a bill improving educational opportunities for children 
with special educational needs, learning disabled children, and that 
was passed through the Congress on a bipartisan basis and signed into 
law by the President.
  We also have a bill that I authored that addresses juvenile crime, 
since juveniles, young people, account for the fastest growing segment 
of the criminal population. And it is a bill that I believe is tough on 
punishment but also smart on prevention. That legislation has passed 
the House and is pending in the Senate.
  So I would like to know from the President what he proposes to do 
about the fact that so many of our bills that have emanated here, 
originated in the House of Representatives, actually originated in my 
subcommittee, passed through our full committee, passed through the 
House and are now languishing in the other body, the Senate, which all 
too often becomes the graveyard for well-intentioned legislation. I 
would like him to work with us to convince the members of his party in 
the other body to allow our legislative agenda to go forward. Because 
otherwise his comments about this being a, quote-unquote, do-nothing 
Congress are a little bit disingenuous.
  We also want to provide more Federal taxpayer assistance in the form 
of scholarships or, as some prefer to call them, vouchers to needy 
inner-city children, beginning here in the District of Columbia. The 
District of Columbia public schools have the highest dropout rates and 
the lowest test scores of any large school district in the country. And 
again I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the President should 
support these education initiatives before creating a host of new 
programs that would compete with these programs for the same limited, 
in fact, precious Federal taxpayer dollars.
  So I guess my first message to the President is first things first. 
Let us support the programs that we have already passed through the 
House of Representatives, not new ones that happen to sell well in an 
election year because they make for a catchy sound bite or because it 
is a proposal that is based on some poll or on some focus group. That 
is not the way to make good policy.
  And I am very disturbed that the administration is also proposing now 
to cut, to cut, everyone heard me right, the President in his budget 
proposal to the Congress is now proposing to cut some very important 
education programs, while on the other hand talking about creating a 
bunch of new education programs. That does not make a lot of sense.
  In fact, one of the programs that the President and his 
administration are talking about cutting is the Even Start Family 
Literacy Program. That is a program that is focused on very young 
children. It is an expansion of the Head Start program because it also 
works with the parents of those young children who come from 
disadvantaged backgrounds when the parents themselves have reading 
problems or lack fluency in the English language, which is, after all, 
the commercial language of our country. And in my view we should 
designate the English language the official and common language of our 
country as well.
  So the President is proposing, or at least his administration is 
proposing to cut the Even Start Family Literacy Program, and he is 
proposing to cut funding for the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. It is called IDEA, and that acronym, since there is an 
acronym in Washington for every program, that acronym stands for the 
Federal special education program. In fact, it is a civil rights and 
special education program because it is designed to ensure that every 
child with a learning disability receives a free and appropriate 
education under our civil rights statutes.
  Now, we know this program works. We made modifications and 
improvements to it last year on a bipartisan basis and the President 
signed that legislation into law. And no sooner do we get it signed 
into law than the President turns around and is proposing to cut 
funding for that program.
  Now, consider this. When I talk about him proposing to cut funding in 
his budget proposal, this program, IDEA, the Federal special education 
program is the only curriculum mandate imposed on State and local 
school districts by Washington. There is no other curriculum mandate in 
Federal law, yet we continue to underfund this mandate.
  In fact, I think the best way to think of it is probably the mother 
of all unfunded Federal mandates because we require that local school 
districts comply with this law. Like I said, it is a curriculum and 
legal mandate, yet we have never fully funded compliance with that 
mandate by State and local school districts.
  We personally believe, we Republicans, that that should be one of our 
country's top priorities. That should be the number one education 
priority in this country. Because when Congress first passed this law 
way back in 1975, we promised to pay 40 percent of the additional cost 
of special education created or incurred as a result of the Federal 
legislation.
  However, today, even with the historic funding increases that we have 
given this program in recent years since Republicans became the 
majority party in the Congress, Federal taxpayers are only covering 9 
percent of the total cost of special education in America today. Nine 
percent versus the original promise back in 1975 of 40 percent.

  And even though we are at 9 percent, a record high, the President 
wants to reduce that next year in his budget proposal. We believe that 
a promise made should be a promise kept, and that we ought to live up 
to the promise made 23 years ago, especially to those families who have 
children with learning disabilities and special needs.
  We also know that there is plenty of room to cut the Federal 
education bureaucracy here in Washington. The Federal Government today 
has roughly 788 education programs at a cost of $97 billion. My 
colleagues heard me right; 788 programs on the books, administered by 
the Department of Education and dozens of other Federal agencies and 
commissions spread across the whole Federal government's bureaucracy.
  We believe that there ought to be a bipartisan effort in the Congress 
to focus on reforming existing programs before creating expensive new 
and potentially duplicative Federal programs. We have certainly had 
ample debate here in the Congress, and we have heard from the Secretary 
of Education and others in the Clinton Administration who claim that 
somewhere between 100 to 200 of these 788 programs are actually not 
real education programs because they have never been funded.
  But our response to that is, if that is the case, if these programs 
have been

[[Page H1153]]

created by an act of Congress but never funded, then they should be 
taken off the books. It is time to completely sunset them, get rid of 
them. If we did that, it would just narrow us down to or it would 
reduce us down to somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 to 600 programs 
that we already have for education in America today, even before we 
begin discussing the new ones that the President proposes.
  Secondly, I want to make the point that the money is really not there 
for a host of new Federal education programs. The President's spending 
proposals would return us to the era of big government. And it was just 
a few years ago that he stood right here behind me at this podium at 
the microphone to address the Nation and the Congress during his State 
of the Union address and declared that the era of big government was 
over.
  Well, one could not tell that from looking at his budget proposal 
this year. His new proposals would cost American taxpayers $10 billion, 
that is capital B-I-L-L-I-O-N, $10 billion more in new spending over 
the next 5 years.
  And it is a phony proposal. Why do I say phony? Because it assumes 
that the Federal Government is going to get a windfall from this 
settlement of the large class action tobacco lawsuit brought by the 
State governments against the tobacco companies. Well, anyone who has 
followed those discussions or those negotiations having to do with the 
tobacco settlement knows that the outcome of those negotiations is very 
problematical.
  I think it is very doubtful whether we will see any money from the 
tobacco companies in the next Federal fiscal year, yet the President is 
proposing to use that money to help fund $10 billion in new spending 
over 5 years. We think it is wrong to mislead American families into 
thinking that they will have new programs funded by a tobacco 
settlement that may never come to pass, number one; and, number two, if 
we do get a settlement of the tobacco lawsuit, the proceeds of that 
settlement ought to be used for anti-tobacco initiatives aimed at our 
young people.
  The proceeds from that lawsuit ought to be used to discourage and 
prevent tobacco addiction on the part of our young people. They ought 
to be used also for more medical research into the causes of cancer in 
the hopes we can find a cure to cancer, because that would have a 
tremendous effect of reducing public health costs in our big Federal 
programs, Medicare and Medicaid.
  So I do not think we can make a just argument that the tobacco 
settlement proceeds should be used to pay for a host of new programs. 
And by the way, it appears that the American people are very leery of 
new Washington spending. According to a recent Louis Harris poll, 45 
percent of all Americans said we should use the budget surplus to 
reduce the debt. That was their top priority in terms of spending any 
actual Federal budget surplus, and we still have a ways to go before we 
run a surplus back here in Washington. Forty-one percent said they 
wanted to reduce taxes by the amount of any surplus. And only 13 
percent of the public said that they would increase spending on, quote, 
valuable government programs, with a Federal Government surplus.
  I also am concerned that the President is putting Washington in 
charge of our schools. It is clear when we look at his proposals that 
he wants to nationalize education by federalizing initiatives and 
solutions to our educational concerns and problems back here in 
Washington. It is almost as if he wants the United States Congress to 
become the de facto national school board, and we do not think that is 
the way to go. No matter how these programs are designed and funded, 
they will ultimately come with Federal regulations attached. That is 
the one absolute given. That is what happens here in Washington.
  Now, President Clinton would rather fund programs that support the 
Washington education bureaucracy than programs that send funds directly 
to teachers in classrooms. That is the philosophical conflict between 
the Democratic party and the Republican Party, and it is a conflict 
that plays itself out in debate in this House and in the committees of 
this House on a daily basis.
  In fact, the President wants to cut funding, and here is another area 
where he proposes to cut education funding, something that we do not 
hear from the administration and we do not hear often from the news 
media. The President wants to cut $476 million in Federal education aid 
that goes directly to communities. He wants to cut $476 million in 
Federal education aid that goes directly to communities in the form of 
a block grant while increasing, while increasing the U.S. Department of 
Education activities by $143 million.
  His budget proposal flies in the face of the priorities of local 
control in education and empowering parents to choose the schooling and 
the education that is right for their children. The President wants to 
completely eliminate the Title VI State block grant which provides 
funds for teacher training, technology and education reform. This is a 
program that is used by school districts around the country to buy 
much-needed computers, to develop school technology, and to implement 
parental involvement activities.

                              {time}  1630

  In fact, last year 191 Members of this body, the House of 
Representatives, voted for my legislation, the HELP scholarships 
legislation, that would have allowed States and local communities to 
use funding under this Title VI State block grant, to also provide 
scholarships, tuition scholarships or vouchers, to low-income families. 
And now we learn, perhaps as a result of that proposal, that the 
President wants to eliminate the program altogether.
  So here we have the President talking about reducing funding for 
special education, eliminating the State block grants for education, 
and cutting money for the Even Start Family Literacy Program. He wants 
to cut two of the most effective programs that drive money to the local 
level, the Even Start Family Literacy Program and the Block Grant 
Program, as well.
  Now, the President's new spending proposals also duplicate existing 
Federal programs. The President has proposed, like I said earlier, a 
host of new or expanded teacher training initiatives in technology, in 
urban areas, and in bilingual education. We do not understand why these 
priorities cannot be funded by existing programs, programs that we 
already have on the books, programs that we are already funding, like 
the Eisenhower Professional Development Program or those Title VI block 
grants that I just mentioned.
  He is also proposing a new program called the Educational Opportunity 
Zones Initiative that looks an awful lot like the existing Title 1 
program, which is a 30-year program that provides remedial education to 
our disadvantaged children. So it is hard not to be a little skeptical, 
even cynical, about the President's proposal because it seems to us, 
again, to be largely a poll-driven proposal full of catchy sound bites 
in an election year, and an attempt to use this particular issue, 
education, which is so important to our country and so near and dear to 
the heart of American parents, to use that issue for partisan political 
advantage during an election year. And I would have sworn I heard the 
President say in his State of the Union that we ought to make sure that 
partisan politics stop at the schoolhouse door.
  We recognize that teaching is important, and that is why in the 
coming weeks, House Republicans, we will be putting forward our own 
proposal in the area of teacher training and classroom size reduction. 
But we are not going to be creating new programs as we do it, we are 
going to do it in the context of the higher education bill that is now 
pending in the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and we are 
going to make sure that it is fully paid for.
  By that, I mean we are going to make sure that the cost of creating 
this new teacher training and classroom size reduction initiative is 
offset by cutting spending somewhere else in the Federal budget. We are 
very committed to improving the quality of teaching in America. Let me 
stipulate that I believe that teaching is a missionary calling. I 
believe the old saying that a teacher can affect eternity because he or 
she never knows where their influence might end.
  But the point with respect to teaching is very simple; we want 
quality, not necessarily quantity. The administration takes the 
opposite approach; it

[[Page H1154]]

is quantity not quality, they say. That is why they are talking about 
100,000 new teachers, when in reality we do not believe that there is a 
teacher shortage on a national basis in America, that the teacher 
shortage, where it exists, exists in just a few areas of our Nation and 
then it is a shortage in getting good quality teachers.
  We also believe that we have to focus on more effective ways to 
improve student learning, and the best way to do that is to improve in 
traditional teacher training at colleges and universities. We focus a 
lot on how to teach, but not enough on what to teach in American 
education today.
  So we are going to see our proposal coming forward in the next few 
weeks. We hope it can be bipartisan. But we will have more of an 
emphasis on quality rather than quantity when it comes to improving 
teacher preparation and teacher training in America today.
  I also want to touch one of the President's other initiatives, and 
that is school construction. Now, we Republicans recognize the concerns 
of parents who live in those communities that have overcrowded and/or 
crumbling schools or schools that are deteriorating because of a lack 
of maintenance. They already have a lot of deferred maintenance, a lack 
of funding to keep abreast of maintenance needs and certainly a lack of 
funding to help expand schools in those communities that have a growing 
school-age population.
  However, asking the Federal Government, Federal taxpayers to become 
involved in what is traditionally a State and local responsibility; 
that is to say, the funding of school facilities, raises a host of new 
concerns. And rather than ram something through the Congress, we want a 
careful, deliberate, thorough debate about school construction and the 
role of the Federal Government and Federal taxpayers in addressing that 
concern.
  We believe that the President's proposal could erode local support 
for public schools because, once again, it would place Washington in 
the driver's seat with Congress as a national school board determining 
which communities would qualify for school construction assistance from 
Federal taxpayers and which would not, conversely.
  A lot of States, including my own State of California, have already 
passed new construction initiatives. And I worry that this new Federal 
Construction Program for local schools would, in essence, punish States 
and communities that support their schools and reward those that do 
not. So we want to have a very careful, thorough discussion of the 
school construction needs of American communities and a debate about 
the legitimate Federal interest and role in addressing that need before 
we even consider creating yet again another Federal Education Program 
at considerable expense to Federal taxpayers.
  I wish we could focus more when we talk about education on local 
control and more accountability, as I said in my opening comments, 
through competition and choice. I am very proud of the work that we 
have done in this Congress on charter schools. Charter schools are 
independent public schools that are free of a lot of the usual red tape 
and regulations that all too often strangle innovation and flexibility 
and site-based decision-making in education.
  We were able to pass a bill through the House of Representatives. 
Once again, it is now like so many of our other initiatives pending in 
the other body, the Senate, that would help States and local 
communities create more charter schools, which is the first step on the 
road to full parental choice in education today.
  I cannot think of a better way, though, to empower parents and 
teachers than through the idea of independent public choice schools, 
like charter schools, where more decisions can be made, not just at the 
local level, but actually at the site level on that school campus. That 
is one reason why I like the idea of charter schools.
  I also favor the idea of tuition tax credits and opportunity 
scholarships. I think it is, perhaps, time that we built on the 
centerpiece of last year's tax relief legislation and the centerpiece 
of the Contract with America, I might add, which, despite the 
opposition of so many of our Democratic colleagues in the Congress, is 
slowly but surely becoming law.

  I think it is time that perhaps we built on the centerpiece of the 
tax relief legislation and the Contract with America, the $500 per 
child tax credit for families with dependent children, and credit a new 
$500 per child tax credit, but this one specifically and solely for 
education purposes. It would be a $500 per child tax credit that any 
family could use to meet the educational needs and expenses of their 
children.
  They could use it at a public school, or they could use it at a 
private or parochial school. They could use it for any legitimate 
education purpose as they see fit and as they deem appropriate for 
their child, because that is very much in keeping with the idea of 
parental choice.
  It respects the idea of the fundamental truism that it is their 
money, and it is their child. It is their future that we are talking 
about when we discuss parental choice in education.
  I mentioned our literacy grants for parents that are already in our 
reading excellence bill. That has passed the House once again; now 
pending in the other body. I believe that we ought to go one step 
further and reform our Federal bilingual education programs this year 
in this Congress, with a goal of every child being able to read and 
write by the end of first grade in English, the official, the common 
and commercial language of our country.
  My pending legislation to reform Federal bilingual education programs 
would give parents the right to decide whether their child participates 
in a bilingual education class. It would require that local school 
districts and local schools obtain the written consent, the permission 
of the parent before their child could be enrolled in a bilingual 
education program.
  Lastly, I want to say on education that I am concerned that so many 
of our young people are losing out in today's economy. Mr. Speaker, we 
have somewhere in the neighborhood of 350,000 to 400,000 unfilled good 
paying jobs in our economy today, with our economy creating more jobs, 
more jobs because the economy is prosperous, creating more such jobs 
with every passing day.
  What are these jobs, and where are these jobs you might ask? These 
are information technology jobs. They are relatively high skill. They 
pay a high entry-level wage, a living wage, I guess you could say, a 
living wage in the range of $40,000 to $60,000, with generous benefits 
at the companies that have these unfilled positions, with the 
opportunity for rapid advancement and a promotion to salary in the 
range of $80,000 to $100,000 a year.
  Yet, all around us, we have young people who lack the education and 
job skills necessary to take advantage of these kind of jobs. These are 
jobs that require that a young person, young person graduating high 
school today, or if they go on to college, a young person who, after 
their 13th or 14th year of education, be technologically capable and 
computer-literate.
  These are jobs that are all over the country, but they appear to be 
especially concentrated in my home State of California, many of the 
jobs, of course, in the Silicon Valley, which, in many respects, 
started our whole electronics revolution and helped create the 
information and knowledge-based economy of today and of the 21st 
Century, which is right around the corner.
  But there are jobs that are also found in Austin, Texas. There are 
jobs that can be found in the research triangle of North Carolina. 
There are jobs that can be found in just about any metropolitan 
community in the country today. There are jobs that can be found within 
a few miles of the United States Capitol, just across the Potomac River 
in Northern Virginia, or just around the corner in Suburban Maryland.
  Yet, think about all the young people in the District of Columbia, 
which has a, like I said earlier, a very dismal graduation rate, a very 
high dropout rate. About 50 percent of the kids who enter the District 
of Columbia public schools in the ninth grade, their freshman year, 
actually graduate 4 years later.
  Think about those young people trapped and failing in underperforming 
schools and relegated to a life of poverty, all too often anyway, 
poverty, joblessness, hopelessness. Why can they not take advantage of 
those jobs that are just literally, 15, 20, 30 miles away? It is an 
absolute tragedy.

[[Page H1155]]

  Why should they be sentenced to living an adult life of dependency or 
worse? Why should society, taxpayers as a whole, bear the cost for the 
failure of the school system to prepare those young people for the jobs 
of tomorrow? They are really not the jobs of tomorrow because, like I 
said, they are here and now, 350,000 to 400,000 such jobs over the 
country, with the economy creating more of these types of jobs, these 
living-wage jobs with every passing day.
  Why are not our schools preparing our young people to compete and 
succeed in a knowledge-based economy? Well, we are struggling with the 
answers to that, but it all comes back down to a lack of academic 
preparedness for our young people.
  I personally despair a great deal because I know in my heart of 
hearts that we, as a country, cannot afford to lose another generation 
of urban school children. I only see change coming about when we shift 
the focus in education, as I said earlier, to parents and students.
  For those of us who believe that we will only get reform and real 
improvement when we embrace the idea of school choice, I would cite 
these statistics. This is a recent Gallup poll that was done for a 
group called Phi Delta Kappa International. In the poll, 72 percent of 
black parents, 72 percent of African Americans favored parental choice, 
including taxpayer-paid vouchers for private school.

                              {time}  1645

  Sixty-three percent of Hispanic American parents favored the idea.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to submit that we cannot leave those young people 
behind. We cannot relegate them to failing or underperforming schools. 
We have to give them a way out. We have to ensure that they have the 
knowledge and the education and the job skills to take advantage of 
this economy and these kind of jobs, and that our failure to do so will 
be nothing less than a national disgrace. But for those young people, 
the have-nots of tomorrow, the future have-nots of the 21st century, 
for those young people, it is a personal tragedy.
  I submit that we have to have more choice in education in order to 
empower parents. Ultimately, we have to recognize that parents are 
responsible as the first and best teacher of their children, and 
responsible for the education that their children receive. I guess it 
is almost as simple as really, if we are going to give students a 
chance, we have to give parents a choice.
  The other thing I want to do, Mr. Speaker, in closing out my comments 
under this special order, is to talk about an even more fundamental 
lesson in education, and that is the moral lessons that we teach our 
kids. I personally believe that there is nothing more important than 
personal morality. I am concerned that our young people today, in part 
because of events here in Washington, D.C., may not be receiving that 
message.
  I am here today to stand and say unequivocally to our young people, 
and I can say this as the father and parent of three children myself, 
that the truth matters and that character counts. There is nothing more 
important, nothing more important in your life than your personal 
morality and your ability to influence other people around you by your 
own moral example.
  The problems that plague our Nation today, aside from the education 
problems that I have talked about for most of the past hour, the 
problems that plague our Nation today arise primarily from bad moral 
decisions made by adults, illegitimacy, crime, drugs, divorce, drug 
abuse, child abuse and child neglect, even pornography, abortion. All 
those problems reflect poor moral decisions, poor choices made by 
adults.
  I also submit that the most pressing issue affecting child welfare in 
America today is the breakdown in the family. If the family breaks 
down, of course whole societies or whole communities are going to begin 
to disintegrate. You do not have to walk very far from where we are 
gathered now, the Nation's Capital, the shrine of democracy, to see 
evidence of that kind of family breakdown and social disintegration.
  We need good role models probably more than ever before. Given again 
recent events here in Washington, we need good role models in American 
society.
  Let me stipulate that politicians, those of us who hold elective 
office, should be role models. We should be held to higher standards 
because, whether we like it or not, we are role models for our 
constituents and for our children. Our children represent our common 
hopes, our common dreams and our common mission as a country.
  I want to talk a little bit about the importance of morality. I want 
to note that less than a month ago, we celebrated President's Day, 
which was created to celebrate the birthdays of Presidents George 
Washington and Abraham Lincoln. That is the day recently when we 
honored, as a country, two great men who led this country at very 
unique times. I would not say that any of us who serve in the Congress 
today could put ourselves in the same category as a Washington or a 
Lincoln, but I would say it is their qualities of leadership and 
strength of character that every person running for or serving in 
elective office should try to emulate.
  First and foremost, both were men of great integrity and fortitude. 
Secondly, both were men who were willing to do the right thing for 
their country, regardless of the political consequences. George 
Washington said, ``Let prejudices and local interests yield to reason. 
Let us look to our national character into things beyond the present 
period.''
  Abraham Lincoln said in his last public address, ``Important 
principles may and must be inflexible.''
  Both men believed in being patriotic citizens first and politicians 
second. That is a goal or a vision that I think is too often lost in 
modern American politics. Both men believed in putting principle over 
politics. They triumphed over adversity and numerous setbacks. The 
value of courage, persistence and perseverance has rarely been 
illustrated more convincingly than in the life story of these two men 
that we revere, and both of those men, when you read their writings, 
recognized that their perseverance was a gift of God.
  I want to stress again the importance of setting the right example, 
teaching our young people the right lessons. It is in that context that 
I would hope that some of the recent actions by the administration 
could be viewed. I took great exception the other day when the White 
House press secretary, a man by the name of Michael McCurry, actually 
compared Ken Starr, the independent counsel, to Saddam Hussein, if you 
can imagine. In fact the exchange was, a reporter asked him, does the 
White House have any delight in or feel responsibility for a CBS News 
poll that shows Ken Starr with an approval ratings of 12 percent. And 
Mr. McCurry responded by saying, ``Where was Saddam?''
  I am sure he thought he was being cute, even funny, when he made 
those comments, but I do not think those are responsible comments. I 
think he should be rebuked for making those kinds of comments.
  I would remind Mr. McCurry and the other people who are participating 
in what seems to be an orchestrated or concerted strategy by this 
administration with respect to the truth to first deny it and then 
stonewall and then attack, it is the old shoot-the-messenger theory, 
that the best defense is a good offense.
  I would remind Mr. McCurry and his ilk that Mr. Starr has a very 
important job to do, that he has obtained a number of indictments and 
guilty convictions, that with respect to his mandate to investigate the 
so-called Whitewater real estate matter that he has already obtained 
convictions of two of the individuals directly involved in that 
particular venture, the two people who were business partners of the 
President and the First Lady. He has also obtained a conviction of the 
President's immediate successor as the governor of Arkansas, a 
gentleman who from all appearances is now cooperating with the 
investigation.
  So I think Mr. McCurry ought to think twice before making those kinds 
of comments, even if he does want to appear to be very witty and clever 
as he banters with the media.
  I also want to go on record as saying once again, and our rules here 
in the House are structured so as to preserve comity--c-o-m-i-t-y, not 
comedy, c-o-m-e-d-y--but I do want to say that I

[[Page H1156]]

personally believe, since it has now been well over 40 days since the 
President promised to clear the air and tell the American people the 
full truth, in fact I think he promised more rather than less, sooner 
rather than later, I want to say that I do believe that the President 
owes us all as fellow Americans, since we are all his constituents, he 
is the only elected official who represents every American, that he 
owes us all a complete explanation.

  I also want to tell my colleagues that it is my interpretation of the 
law that it is simply not true, as the President claims, as the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) said the other day, that the rules of 
law or the rules of any court prohibit him, the President, from 
commenting, or from clearing the air and telling the truth.
  I do not believe that the law or any court order constrains the 
President from following through on his promise to the American people 
to tell more rather than less and sooner rather than later. I believe 
that it is his choice, his decision alone, that keeps the President 
from commenting on the matters that swirl around him and keep the 
President from telling the American people the whole truth.
  By the way, I personally believe that you can trust the American 
people with the truth, even when it is bad news. All I can say is that 
I would hope that the President will come forward soon and speak to the 
American people.
  I also again just want to tell our young people that there is nothing 
more important than your personal morality, your word. There is nothing 
more important than the character you are developing now as you go 
through school and the character you will display as a young person. I 
want to say that character does count.
  I salute those who are coming forward now, such as the American women 
who had a rally last week here in Washington on March 5, a week ago 
today, in John Marshall Park. The theme of their rally was very simple; 
it was, Character Does Count, exclamation point.
  These women, I think, are really to be commended, because they came 
forward. They are asking their fellow Americans to add their voices to 
those who believe that the American people deserve leaders of honesty, 
faithfulness and integrity, leaders who respect rather than dishonor 
and undermine marriage and the family. I want to tell those ladies that 
I admire them; I think that they are sending a very important message 
to our young people.
  I personally believe that Americans do care. I know that I care 
personally, and that together, if enough of us care, we can demand 
leaders who will tell the truth, obey the law and who are worthy role 
models for our children.

                          ____________________