[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2614-H2623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1502, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STUDENT
OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP ACT OF 1997
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 413 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 413
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1502)
entitled the ``District of Columbia Student Opportunity
Scholarship Act of 1997''. The bill shall be considered as
read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the bill equally
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader or his designee
and a Member opposed to the bill; and (2) one motion to
commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of
debate only.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a
closed rule for S. 1502 which provides for 2 hours of debate equally
divided between the majority leader or his designee and an opponent of
the bill. The rule also provides for one motion to commit.
Mr. Speaker, let us make no mistake about it. The intent of this bill
is to provide a better education for the children of Washington, D.C.
The bill allows the most needy families of this city to choose what
school is best for their child, and it provides them the resources to
do it. In short, the bill empowers the families of Washington, D.C.,
who now have no choice but to send their child to an often inadequate
local school.
At the same time, though, this bill will help the children who remain
in the District's public school system. It provides Federal funding to
help local public school students pay for private tutors. In addition,
as some students begin to choose scholarships, spending per pupil in
District public schools may go up, while class sizes go down.
Our intent is not to drain Federal funds from public schools.
Instead, we are striving to help out accountability back into the
public school system. A parent who notices that a neighbor's child has
blossomed under the scholarship program will have the same opportunity
for their child.
The scholarship funds in this bill are in addition to the more than
$568 million that Congress provides every year to the District of
Columbia public schools, a school system that spends more money per
pupil than almost any other school system in the country, approximately
$10,000 per pupil.
Mr. Speaker, the D.C. Student Scholarship Act helps the children of
this city. I strongly support this legislation because I firmly believe
that it enables parents to send their children to a more structured,
more disciplined environment. It is their choice. At the same time, the
bill allows the local public schools to focus on the children who
remain and allows each school to spend more money for each child.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership just does not get it. We do
not get better public schools by shifting public money to private and
parochial schools; and that is, in the end, what the Republican
leadership wants to do. They just want to start this grand social
experiment in the District of Columbia and use the bill before us to do
it.
Mr. Speaker, no one denies that there is a need for vast improvement
in the schools of the District. But providing vouchers for 2,000
students just will not get it done.
And, Mr. Speaker, to make matters worse, this rule shuts out any
debate on this matter. This closed rule prohibits the delegate from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) from offering an amendment to a bill
that ostensibly affects only her constituents.
This rule is unconscionable and deserves to be defeated.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership will use words and phrases
like school choice, accountability, object lesson to promote school
vouchers. The Republican leadership will say that, first and foremost,
school vouchers are about the children. Mr. Speaker, if that is, in
fact, the case, why have not we seen legislation to provide schools
districts with the funds they need to hire more teachers so that we can
reduce class size and more readily promote structure and discipline in
the classrooms across this country?
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to speak out of order for
1 minute.)
Circumvention Of Committee On The Judiciary's Jurisdiction
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have sent the Speaker, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich) a letter that I want to put in the Record
which deals with the fact that he has asked for a special committee to
review any reports submitted by the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr.
In my view, I say to him any such circumvention of the Committee on the
Judiciary's historic duty would set a poor precedent and clearly
indicate an intent to politicize this matter, rather than give it any
sober and objective scrutiny.
Coming several months before the midterm elections, I believe the
American public would also see the abandonment of regular order as
signaling a partisan witch-hunt. This is especially important in light
of the bias that you, you being the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrich), have demonstrated in your recent public comments.
The letter referred to is as follows:
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, April 29, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: During the course of the past several
months, news reports have repeatedly quoted you and your
office as contemplating the circumvention of the House
Judiciary Committee and the formation of a special committee
to review any report submitted by Independent Counsel Kenneth
Starr pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 595(c).
In my view, any such circumvention of the Judiciary
Committee's historic jurisdiction would set a poor precedent
and clearly indicate an intent to intensely politicize this
matter rather than give it any sober and objective scrutiny.
Coming several months before the midterm elections, I believe
the American public would also see the abandonment of regular
order as signaling a partisan witch hunt. This is especially
important in light of the clear bias you have demonstrated in
your recent public comments concluding the existence of
illegal conduct prior to your even reading or considering the
report to the House.
In fact, if one looks closely at this matter, it is hard to
see how one could contemplate any other venue than the House
Judiciary Committee, which clearly has both the expertise and
experience to handle any such report.
The Independent Counsel Statute itself (the Ethics in
Government Act, 28 U.S.C. 591, et seq.) is the legislative
product of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee
continues to be engaged in oversight of the Act, has
conducted hearings on the Act, and shortly will be
responsible for reauthorization of the Act.
Discussion of any underlying criminal statutes that may be
contained in the report are under the jurisdiction of the
Committee, and again, are subject to continuing scrutiny.
The House Judiciary Committee is the one Committee with the
experience of handling grand jury materials, the secrecy of
which both federal law and House precedents require.
As you know, I have repeatedly questioned Kenneth Starr
both because of the tactics he employs and due to the
numerous conflicts of interest that have beset his
investigation from the start. If this matter is to be
transferred to the House, it would be most unfortunate to
taint any process from the outset
[[Page H2615]]
with partisanship or political gamesmanship. Such a process
would be widely viewed as a kangaroo court which
illegitimately forms conclusions prior to hearing facts, and
whose sole objective is the politicization of allegations to
influence the fall Congressional elections.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Democrat.
{time} 1030
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if it is about the well-being of children,
why have we not seen legislation that promotes the best possible public
education we can provide in this rich and affluent Nation of ours?
Mr. Speaker, I can only guess that the Republican leadership believes
that Democratic opposition to school vouchers is a good campaign issue.
But I will state unequivocally that the education of the children of
this country is not something that should be used to serve a political
agenda. Public education is the cornerstone of this great country of
ours, and I stand second to no one in my support and commitment to
public education.
The congressional Republican leadership can politicize the education
of the boys and girls of this country all they want, but Democrats, as
well as a good many Republicans, know that public education is good for
our children and good for our country. This does not mean, Mr. Speaker,
that there are not problems that all of us from the Congress to our
Governors, school boards and every parent needs to face squarely, but
this proposal does not address any of the problems we find in our
public schools.
In fact, the National Alliance of Black School Educators has said
that this proposal constitutes an abandonment of the real issues that
affect quality teaching and learning in the worst of our public
schools. If the District of Columbia represents some of the worst of
our public schools, then how can this Congress turn its back on its
children?
I would suggest that instead of using the $7 million for a school
voucher program, that it would be far better to use half of that money,
as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) proposes,
for reading tutors for the 73 poorest-performing schools in the city.
I am not standing here as an apologist for the administration of the
school system in this city, but I am standing here as someone who is
committed, as are my constituents, to strong and effective public
education. I fear that this proposal of the Republican leadership is
just a first step in the dismantling of public education.
Mr. Speaker, this closed rule is unfair to the people of the District
of Columbia because their elected Representative of this body has been
precluded from offering an alternative to legislation which affects
only them, and this bill is unfair to public education throughout this
country. I urge the defeat of the rule and the defeat of the bill
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella).
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule and also
the underlying legislation. Let me just point out why.
While we are all in favor of improving education, let us just look to
the status and the state of the Washington, D.C. school system. In a
report in the Washington Post, they claim that the system is a well-
financed failure. Despite spending $9,000 per student, more than half
of the tenth-graders test below basic in reading, and fully 89 percent
of the tenth-graders test below basic in math.
Mr. Speaker, there is the old fairy tale about Peter Pan leading the
children into Never Never Land, and I would submit that that is
exactly, unfortunately, what has been happening in the Washington, D.C.
school system. We have been leading these children into Never Never
Land, never having them to become productive members of society.
When we think what it would be like back in our hometown, whether it
is Staten Island or anywhere across America, to have 89 percent of the
tenth-graders test below average in math and to some extent reading, I
think we would call for a rapid change. To me, it is not a fairy tale,
it has become a Shakespearean tragedy, it is a rotten weed, and we must
root it out.
I think that is what we are talking about here, because when we think
about the system, two words come to mind, and that is, what we hear
today, awful, to describe the system, and opportunity, to describe how
we can help these children escape the abyss, the trap that they will be
in for the rest of their lives.
Let us put a face on it. Beginning in September, there will be a 5-
year-old boy or girl who will begin kindergarten. That 5-year-old will
soon become a 7-year-old, a 10-year-old, a 12-year-old, and that
person, that little boy or girl, will not have the same opportunity or
hope that we should provide. We talk about, well, we know what is best.
There was recently a private scholarship fund funded by a man named
Ted Forstmann, a good American who saw that common sense would prevail;
that if parents were given a choice to send their children to a
different school, a better school, they would do so. And indeed, 1,000
scholarships were made available to the parents of the city school
system; 7,500 applied. If that does not tell us that there are parents
out there who care about their children, who care about sending their
children to quality schools, I do not know what does.
Well, perhaps this will. In New York City, there are similar types of
scholarships we have tried with raising private funds. Again, in the
last couple of years, 1,300 children have received scholarships; more
than 22,000 parents have applied to bring their kids and put them into
schools that will provide them with the best education possible.
We talk about the entrenched bureaucrats and the special interests
who put themselves first. Let us put the children and families first of
this country when it comes to education. Let us provide them with the
hope and opportunity they rightfully deserve and expect.
There was a famous battle at the beginning of World War I where the
French general said, ``They shall not pass,'' as referred to the German
troops. Well, they did. But in the meantime during that battle we lost
over a million lives, and I suggest strongly that if we allow the
status quo and the defenders of the status quo to win this argument, we
will see them not pass, that being the children, but we will lose too
many lives in the meantime.
Let me just close, Mr. Speaker, with one last thing. Again, we have
argued that for years, we even heard the acknowledgment by those who
oppose this rule and oppose this legislation that there are problems.
Well, I would say strongly that everybody else, the special interests,
the bureaucrats, those who like the status quo, have had their chance.
I say, give the people and the children of the Washington, D.C. school
system a chance for once. Put them first.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed
rule and this misguided bill. As we move into the 21st century,
Congress must work to ensure the success, not just of individual
students, but of all of our young people.
My mother worked in a sweatshop earning 2 cents for each collar she
stitched onto a shirt. She never dreamed that one day her child would
be a member of the United States Congress. But education is a great
equalizer in this Nation. It affords the child of a garment worker the
same opportunities as the children of university professors and
business leaders.
Our public school system needs help, but siphoning Federal money,
public money from our public schools will not solve the problems. We
must improve public schools for all of our children, not to provide an
out for a select few which will further degrade the educational quality
for those who remain. We need to reduce class size. We need to create
an environment where children will learn, put computers in the
classroom, enacting high standards to make sure that our kids are
learning, and create that environment, as I have said. And when we
reduce that class
[[Page H2616]]
size, when we put more reading teachers in the classroom, we give our
kids a greater opportunity.
But that is not what the Republican leadership in this House is
talking about. They have no interest in improving public education in
this country. Instead, they would take money from the public schools,
give it to private schools. They would provide vouchers for just 2,000
students in the District of Columbia, 3 percent of the kids who go to
school here. This is an experiment which they want to carry across the
country.
Vouchers have been voted down in State referendums, declared
unconstitutional by our State courts, even declared a failure in towns
where the experiment has been tried. In Cleveland, test scores for
students who moved to private schools with vouchers did not improve.
Even more disturbing, an audit found that the biggest beneficiaries in
the Cleveland area to this experiment were the taxi drivers, because
they were taking these children to schools, private schools, by taxi.
Vouchers will not solve the problems in our public schools, they will
just create new ones. If our goal is truly to improve public education
in this country, vouchers just do not make the grade. Let us abandon
this experiment, an experiment on our children. We do not need any more
experiments on our children in this country. We need to make sure that
they get the finest education. Let us improve our public schools. Let
us cut down the class size. Let us make more reading teachers
available. Let us make sure they are wired up to computers and the
Internet. That is where the future of our children lie, not in the
voucher experiment on the kids of this country.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hulshof). Again, the Chair must remind
all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House
and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is
in violation of the Rules of the House.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer).
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution gives the
Congress the direct authority to play a managerial role in only one
school district in the entire country, and that is the District of
Columbia. Only the District of Columbia is designated by the
Constitution again as a place where this Congress has direct authority
to deal with the matters at the classroom level of public education.
Now, that authority has been decentralized quite a bit. It has been
decentralized to a large unionized government and bureaucracy that is
failing children and stranding them, denying them any kind of hope or
opportunity for achieving the American dream and getting ahead through
academic progress and academic proficiency.
Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable that anyone would come here and try
to defend the comparative record of the District of Columbia public
school system when compared with the rest of the country. If we are
willing to do that on an intellectually honest level, one will find
very clearly and directly that the children in the District of Columbia
schools are at a decided disadvantage over children throughout the rest
of the country.
Now, the left wing of the Democrat party, as estabished and enshrined
here in the District of Columbia, is one that remarkably favors
bureaucracy and institutions rather than children. This debate here
today and the rule before us is about whether we are going to get
serious about putting children first, putting children ahead of
bureaucrats, making sure that the comfort of children and engaging in
economic competitiveness and prosperity is more important than the
economic comfort of the bureaucrats who run the worst school system in
the entire country.
I would suggest the following, Mr. Speaker, that our goal and
objective here in Washington with respect to the District of Columbia
ought to be to treat parents like real customers, to treat teachers
like real professionals, to, in fact, liberate the education system
here in the District of Columbia, to focus on the freedom to teach and
the liberty to learn. That is what we are offering through this
scholarship program, to empower parents to make the educational
decisions for their children, not the bureaucrats who have left them
behind for so long.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me
begin by making a point that I hope everyone who comes to the floor
understands.
The Member who just spoke indicated a prerogative he thinks he has in
the District of Columbia that he does not have in anyone else's
district. May I say to him that he has no prerogative to manage anybody
who is not accountable to him at the ballot box, and neither he nor any
Member of this House manages anything in the District of Columbia; and
under the Constitution of the United States, no Member should ever
claim to manage any people who cannot vote for him. The gentleman has
no prerogatives, and I will accept none, nor will I accept pejorative
language with respect to our schools. Let me just start this debate
with that understanding to Members who want to come to the floor that
way.
The District of Columbia public schools are poor, very, very poor.
But they are no better and they are no worse than every big-city school
system in the United States of America. So if my colleagues want to
help the youngsters of the District of Columbia, help them. But they
are tired of hearing Members of this body, who have not compared my
school system to theirs or any others, describe it as the worst in the
United States, and I will not have it on this floor today.
I oppose this rule, and I oppose it because the real needs of the
children in my district are too serious to engage in a political
exercise. I recognize that that is not the intent of every Member who
favors vouchers, but whether intended or not, that is exactly what we
will engage in this morning.
The reason that I call this a political exercise is that the voucher
bill before us is exactly like the vouchers that have already been
declared unconstitutional in two States; two courts, one in Ohio,
another in Wisconsin, in the only court tests of publicly funded
vouchers have held them unconstitutional as recently as last year.
{time} 1045
President Clinton will veto this bill because it will drain funds
from the public schools to parochial and private schools. I have his
statement of administration policy before me as I speak. Let me quote
from it.
S. 1502 would create a program of federally funded vouchers
that would divert critical resources, that should be devoted
to our public education priorities, to private schools with
little or no public accountability for how funds are used.
Moreover, the bill is apparently designed to ensure that
receipt of these vouchers, unlike other Federal funds, would
not require schools to comply with Federal civil rights laws
that protect students from discrimination on the basis of
race, color, national origin, sex, or disability.
Mr. Speaker, I sought to convert the interest of Members in the
school system of the District into legislation which could be signed.
To that end, because of the almost certain constitutional demise of
this bill coupled with the assured presidential veto, I went to the
Committee on Rules yesterday feeling that we had an obligation to come
forward with a substitute all could support if we seriously meant to
help these kids.
My substitute would have directed the $7 million into objectively
approved reforms in the D.C. public schools, chosen because they would
have the greatest impact on the largest number of students.
Specifically, I asked for $3.5 million to be given to the D.C. Control
Board to be passed on for reading tutors in the District's 73 lowest
performing schools. I then asked that the other half be provided to the
Secretary of Education to fund proven reforms that fit the District's
70 lowest performing schools.
I drew that section of my substitute from the Porter-Obey bill that
we passed last year on school reform demonstration projects. Beyond the
quality controls now being implemented by the District's impressive new
superintendent, Arlene Ackerman, the Porter-Obey program requires
approval by the Department of Education, and thus I thought that that
kind of substitute
[[Page H2617]]
would guarantee precisely the kind of controls and the kind of
outcomes, and the substitute met all the issues that I believe
Republicans and Democrats say mean most to them; the emphasis on
devolution for Republicans that has been thrown over to the side, as if
the people of the District of Columbia were wards of this body, or
colonists before the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Speaker, I am
here this morning to warn every Member that this Member will not be
treated as if she represents colonials.
The substitute would also, of course, not only have satisfied
devolution concerns but the concerns of Democrats to reach the majority
of the kids in the D.C. public schools.
Now, the substitute was not made in order, nor was an amendment by
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) made in order that would apply
the civil rights enforcement mechanism to these vouchers.
What the majority has done is to create a fiction, saying that public
funds in these 100 percent Federal funded vouchers are not State aid
for purposes of civil rights enforcement. Thus, if there has been a
violation of civil rights under these vouchers, the only recourse would
be to file a suit in Federal court, which of course, would be
impossible for the low-income residents to whom these vouchers are
directed.
Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to oppose this rule, whether Democrats or
Republicans. I ask them to respect the people of the District of
Columbia who have voted in a percentage of 89 percent against vouchers.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) that this is not and should not be
seen as a Washington, D.C. bashing bill. The delegate from Washington,
D.C. is very passionate in representing her area and does a great job.
I served on the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia. We worked with the Control Board, we worked with
Marion Barry, we worked with a lot of people in the years I was on that
committee and tried to be as sensitive as possible. And I believe that
the gentlewoman would agree that there were lots and lots of rhetorical
charges about what the big bad Republicans were going to do, and yet in
the final analysis, much of what she pushed for was actually put into
law on all aspects of the District.
So I think it is very important to say that we have worked on a
bipartisan basis and on a slow basis in terms of any reform effect in
Washington, D.C. because, as one of the appropriators said, it is a
free vote for us to the degree that nobody is going to answer to the
people in Washington, D.C. except for the delegate. But I think rather
than abusing that, the Republican Congress has taken all kinds of extra
steps so, though, that we can be fair and so forth. This is not and is
not designed to bash Washington, D.C. schools.
However, let me say this. As the son of an educator, as the brother
of an educator, as the brother-in-law of an educator, I come from a
family of educators. And I believe one thing that I have learned around
the family dinner table is that education should be dynamic. We should
focus not on the system always, not on the teachers always, not on the
structure, certainly not on the politics, but we should focus on the
classroom, the child and the teacher, and that relationship.
As we focus on it, we should ask, will this legislation or will this
matter help that child out there achieve a better education so that he
or she can go on to compete with children from Miami to New York to San
Francisco to Stockholm to Tokyo? And I believe that if we ask those
questions and put the children first, we can see that this is a
reasonable approach.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a hard ball approach. This is a choice.
Think about it on a small business basis. If we said one particular
type of small business would have the monopoly, there would be no more
pet stores except for the ones that were in existence. There would be
no more barber shops except for the ones in existence. There would be
no more restaurants except for the ones that are in existence. People
would say, ``What are you doing? That is going to kill the quality of
the product,'' and I would agree with them.
Why is education so special that we are afraid to put in that same
element that drives the American economy of small businesses? Why is
education above a little competition? I believe education is sacred
enough that competition will enhance it. I think it is very important.
Last night I had the occasion to go to a dinner for Gulfstream
Aerospace, which Ted Forstmann is the Chairman of the Board, and they
were receiving the Collier Award for Excellence in Aviation, and he
talked about competition and he talked about being an American and,
yes, the subject of the D.C. Scholarship Fund came up, which he is the
author of.
Mr. Speaker, I have and I will submit for the record testimony of one
woman, and I am going to quote directly a Mrs. Jones, because she
competed as one of the 8,000 people who wanted the 1,000 scholarships
and she did not make it and she was crying. And then Mr. Forstmann
called her later on and said instead of giving out a thousand
scholarships, he was going to give out 1001 scholarships. Here is what
she said: ``And when they tell me that I won, I was screaming and
yelling and acting like a fool. You do not know how I prayed for that
scholarship.''
That is what this is about. It is about this woman and her child.
The question of constitutionality has come up. Let me say this, and I
will submit this for the Record, Mr. Speaker, but the scholarship
program fully satisfies the constitutional requirements under the first
amendment. The Supreme Court has held that assistance such as the
scholarships provided in this bill is permissible if, one, the choice
where to use the assistance is made by the parents of the students, not
the government; number two, the program does not create a financial
incentive to choose private schools; and, number three, it does not
involve the government in the schools' affairs. This, like the GI Bill,
Pell Grants, and Federal day care assistance is a choice of funds where
the choice is made by the recipients and not by the government.
I will also submit a letter to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey)
Majority Leader, from Clint Bolick, the vice president of the Institute
for Justice, where he cites five different cases, and I will submit
this for the Record, Mr. Speaker:
Myth: The voucher program violates the separation of church
and state and is unconstitutional
fact
The scholarship program fully satisfies the constitutional
requirements under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has
held that assistance such as the scholarship provided for in
the bill is permissible if: (1) the choice where to use
assistance is made by the parents of students, not the
government; (2) the program does not create a financial
incentive to choose private schools; and (3) it does not
involve the government in the school's affairs.
The D.C. scholarship program fulfills these criteria. Like
the G.I. Bill, Pell Grants and federal day care assistance,
the choice of where the funds are expended is made not by the
government but by the scholarship recipients. Because the
amount of the scholarship is equal to or less than the cost
of tuition, the program does not create a financial incentive
to choose private schools. Scholarships are also made
available under this legislation to pay costs of supplemental
services for public school students, who already receive a
free education. Moreover, the program involves only those
regulations necessary to ensure that reasonable educational
objectives are met, and does not create entanglement between
the government and religious schools. The scholarship program
does not impermissibly establish religion, but instead serves
to expand educational opportunities for children who
desperately need them.
____
Institute for Justice,
October 3, 1997.
Hon. Richard K. Armey,
U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Re constitutionality of District of Columbia Student
Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997.
Dear Mr. Armey: Thanks and congratulations to you and your
colleagues for sponsoring legislation that would create
unprecedented educational opportunities for economically
disadvantaged children in the District of Columbia. Having
defended parental
[[Page H2618]]
choice programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland, I can attest to
their enormous contribution toward the goal of equal
educational opportunities.
Critics of parental choice have raised the red herring of
constitutionality. They contend that the moment a dollar of
public funds passes the threshold of a religious school, it
violates the constitutional prohibition against religious
establishment--a position repeatedly rejected by the U.S.
Supreme Court. Of course, such reasoning also would
invalidate the G.I. Bill, Pell Grants, daycare vouchers, and
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, all of which
allow the use of public funds in religious schools. It is
true that state courts have divided over the
constitutionality of parental choice, usually ruling on state
rather than federal constitutional grounds. The Cleveland
program, which was upheld by the state trial court but struck
down by the court of appeals on First Amendment grounds, has
been allowed to continue--including religious schools--by the
Ohio Supreme Court pending review.
For our purposes, only the First Amendment is relevant. In
an unbroken line of cases since 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court
has held that programs that allow the use of public funds in
religious schools or religiously-sponsored activities are
permissible so long as (1) the decision where to use the
funds is made not by the government, but by parents or
students; and (2) religious schools are only one among a
range of options, and no financial incentive is created to
choose private schools.
The following U.S. Supreme Court decisions have developed
these principles:
Mueller v. Allen (1983): The Court upheld a state income
tax deduction for educational expenses, even though the vast
majority (roughly 96 percent) of the deductions were used for
religious school expenses. The Court noted that the deduction
was available for expenses incurred either in public or
private schools, and that public funds are transmitted to
religious schools ``only as a result of numerous choices of
individual parents of school-age children.'' The independent
choices of third parties render the aid ``indirect,'' as
opposed to direct subsidies of religious schools.
Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind
(1986): The Court unanimously upheld the use of college
benefits by a blind student to study for the ministry at a
divinity school. The state transmitted funds directly to the
school at the student's direction. Again, the Court found
that ``[a]ny aid provided by Washington's program that
ultimately flows to religious institutions does so only as
the result of the genuinely independent and private choices
of aid recipients,'' and that the program ``creates no
financial incentive for students to undertake sectarian
education.''
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993): The
Court upheld the use of a publicly funded interpreter by a
deaf student in a Catholic high school. The interpreter
translated religious as well as secular lessons. ``By
according the parents freedom to select a school of their
choice,'' the Court reasoned, ``the statute ensures that a
government-paid interpreter will be present in a sectarian
school only as a result of the private decision of individual
parents.''
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of
Virginia (1995): The Court approved the direct funding of a
religious student publication because other non-religious
activities were funded as well. ``A central lesson of our
decisions,'' the Court declared, ``is that a significant
factor in upholding governmental programs in the face of
Establishment Clause attack is their neutrality toward
religion.''
Agostini v. Felton (1997): The Court overturned previous
adverse Supreme Court precedents and allowed the use of
public schoolteachers to provide remedial instruction inside
religious schools. Again, the decision relied heavily on the
program's neutrality between religious and secular schools.
The District of Columbia scholarship bill was carefully
drafted to meet the applicable constitutional standards. Just
like Pell Grants and other current federal programs, it
places funds at the disposal of beneficiaries, who may use
them in public, private, or religious schools. The program
does not create an incentive to choose religious schools; in
fact, all except the poorest families receiving scholarships
will have to contribute to tuition if they choose private
schools. Unquestionably, the primary effect of the
scholarship program is not to establish religion, but to
expand educational opportunities to children who desperately
need them.
I hope these comments are helpful to you and your
colleagues as you proceed toward passage of this program. It
is an essential part of the effort to empower parents and
improve public education in our nation's capital.
Very sincerely,
Clint Bolick,
Vice President and
Director of Litigation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like the record to show that
the quotation just cited did not apply to vouchers but to tax schemes,
not vouchers to parents. But the decisions from which I quoted, where
vouchers were found unconstitutional, applied directly to vouchers of
precisely the kind at issue here.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Socrates that said the living are to
the dead as the educated are to the uneducated. In our society today,
an education is a person's future and their future extends from cradle
to grave, and we all will be learning our entire lifetime in this next
millennium.
I have to agree with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) when she said that D.C. has some of the finest schools in
the country, and D.C. has, just as every other school system in our
country has, some schools that are in dire need of help.
I have visited D.C. schools and met with Vera White, a principal at
Jefferson Junior High School. She knows every single name of every
single student and knows where they live and keeps them after school
for homework. They have a space lab in the basement. They have honor
roll students and people clamoring to get into that public school. It
is a great school.
They have the charter school, the Options charter school in D.C. that
may be the best charter school that I have been in in the country.
But we also have problem schools in D.C., and in Chicago, and in
L.A., and in New York, and in Indiana. And we can get up on the floor
and point fingers and say we have got a better solution than our
opponents, just as we did with the budget and we said it was President
Reagan's fault or it was the Democratic Congress' fault.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to work together on the issue that the
American people are the most keenly interested in and come up with
bipartisan solutions to solve this Nation's problems.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does not do it. It does not give our party
anything but a motion to recommit. I strongly urge our side and the
Republican side to vote for the motion to recommit to be offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, for full, whole school
reform and for more reading tutors in our schools.
My problem with the vouchers is twofold. We have heard the
Republicans accuse the Democrats, and sometimes rightly so, of trying
to redistribute wealth in our country through the tax system. That is
exactly what this bill does. It takes $7 million that is going to go to
the public education system and diverts it to private schools.
If we want to raise $50 million like they are doing in San Antonio,
Texas in the private sector, that is great. I support those programs,
but do not redistribute money from public schools that is intended to
go to public schools and have it go to private schools.
Secondly, when we have said we want to work in a bipartisan way to
fix the IRS, we do not say we are going to fix it for 2,000 people and
leave the rest of the people on their own. That is what the voucher
program does today. This bill says we have got a problem with 78,000
schoolchildren and we are going to fix it for 2,000 of those 78,000.
The Democratic Party, or I guess I am speaking for myself from
Indiana, we are not happy with the status quo. That is why we passed
charter school reform. That is why later today in the higher ed bill I
have included an amendment in the bill that is for alternative teacher
certification, so that new teachers can come through the system that
have military experience, that have experience in the private sector.
I am for closing down poorly performing schools, reconstituting
schools.
{time} 1100
I am for new ideas in our schools, but the voucher program is not big
enough to help our Nation's schools. It is experimental only on D.C.
school children and 2,000 of them.
I encourage my Republican colleagues, let us work together, as we did
on balancing the budget, on education. Let us work together on what the
American people think is the key issue
[[Page H2619]]
out there, providing good quality, affordable education to children in
D.C., Indiana, and California.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of very
specific points here. What this is really all about, what we are
talking about today is allowing poor and moderate income families to
make the same and have the same choices in where they send their kids
to school as middle and upper income families.
My friend, the gentleman from Indiana, who I agree with on so many
different things, on the other side of the aisle, I do agree with him
that this idea of fixing it for 2,000 is not the right solution.
I think what we should be doing here today is taking the education
dollars that are already being spent and empowering parents all across
America to be making the decision for where they send their kids to
school.
I would like to make a second point, because we have heard a lot
about how this is transferring public education dollars to private
schools and somehow this is a new idea in America. That is just plain
not right.
We have a system for higher education in America today called a Pell
Grant system. Pell Grants are college scholarships that are literally
given to students that go to teacher and pastor training schools, all
sorts of different religious schools all across the United States of
America.
These Pell Grants are not given with strings attached that the
government is telling these teacher and pastor training schools for
religious institutions across America what or how to teach; they simply
give them the Pell Grant. Those are Federal tax dollars that are
already being handled in this manner. This is not even a new idea that
we are talking about here today. It already goes on all across America.
I think the number one social problem facing America today is
education. The fact that our kids rate somewhere in the twenties in the
world is just plain unacceptable. We need to as a Congress, we need to
as a Nation retarget our ideas that our kids become, again, the best
educated kids in the entire world.
To do that, one idea is more Washington involvement, more Washington
tax dollars, and more strings from here; and that is wrong. It does not
work. The right idea to solve the education problems facing America
today is to empower our parents to once again be actively involved in
the decisions on what our kids are taught, where it is taught and how
it is taught.
The way we empower our parents to be able to make those decisions, in
wealthy families they can make those decisions already, but in poor and
moderate income families the way to do this is to empower and have this
sort of voucher system.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take 30 seconds to point out that if we are
successful at empowering our parents to be actively involved in the
choice of where their kids go to school, what they are taught and how
it is taught, there is a very interesting side benefit. Studies show,
of 12,000 teenagers that were looked at, if parents were more involved
in these teenagers' lives, the immediate impact is less crime, fewer
drugs are used, fewer teen pregnancies, and teen smoking goes down
immediately.
As we are solving the problem of education by allowing our parents to
be more involved in what their kids are learning, where it is taught
and how it is taught, we expect side benefits in other areas that will
benefit this Nation greatly.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire the time remaining on each
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hulshof). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to very strongly oppose this rule and also this
very misguided bill. My colleagues on the Republican side come up and
they tell us this is a noble experiment. Folks, this is not an
experiment. This is a plan masquerading as a policy.
The gentleman who preceded me made a very cogent point. This bill
only helps 2,000 students in the District of Columbia. That leaves
75,000 students in the District of Columbia who get no help whatsoever.
This bill only appropriates money for one year, so at the end of this
year it is very uncertain as to whether this noble experiment will even
be able to continue. More importantly, this so-called noble experiment
has been rejected already by 20 States. In fact, three States in public
referenda rejected this idea twice.
This is a very poorly thought out idea. Here is why: We did a study
and looked at some of the private schools in the District of Columbia.
What we found out was that approximately 90 percent of the private
schools in the District of Columbia charged tuition far in excess of
what is being provided.
So this notion that there is going to be this great choice for
families is really a mistake. It is really a fraud. They are not going
to have the choice to go to the Sidwell Friends or the St. Albans and
the great private schools.
Let us be candid. Sure, if we gave someone the money to go to the
best private school in America, would they get a good education? Yes.
The fact of the matter is the Republicans cannot do that and are not
planning to do it. It is not practical. The money does not exist.
What they are basically doing is patronizing the citizens of the
District of Columbia by saying we know what is best for them, and we
are going to take money away from their school system and put it into
this experiment. But no, no, it is not their money; it is new money.
Look, here is the reality. The District of Columbia needs money for
discipline programs, for reading tutors, for aftercare programs. If we
want to fundamentally improve education in the District of Columbia or
if we want to fundamentally improve education in America, what we need
to do is invest in public schools. If there is new money, do not
experiment, put it into the school system where it can really be used.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my comments here today by quoting
something Lyndon Johnson said, but before that, the Bible said it. He
said: ``Let us reason together.'' That is what I hope we can do in this
debate.
I do not want to bash the District of Columbia schools. I think we
owe these kids and their parents who care so much about this debate the
truth. I think we should be candid. I think we should reason, then,
about the truth.
The truth of the matter is that the District of Columbia schools are
not safe, and the kids are not learning, and everybody knows it. The
longer they stay in the District of Columbia schools, the less they
learn. The longer high school students stay in the D.C. schools, the
more their test scores drop below the national average. Thirty-three
percent of the third graders in the D.C. public schools score below
basic levels in reading and math, and 80 percent of the fourth graders
score below basic levels in reading and math.
For kids who come from these neighborhoods and have as few options as
these kids have, if they are not learning how to read, it means they
are ending up in gangs or on drugs or many of them dead. That is what
it means to these kids. Those are facts that annihilate all these other
facts and the rest of this debate. Let us tell the truth about the
situation these kids are in. If we cannot give them anything else, let
us give them the truth.
The second point, Mr. Speaker, this bill will help at least these
kids. Do not show disrespect to their parents, who are lining up by the
thousands for these scholarships, by saying it is not going to help
them. They know it is going to help them. It is exactly what any of us
would do. That is the reason they wanted the scholarships. So we know
the schools are failing. We know we can help these kids.
Then the other argument, which I respect because we have got to do
something about the public schools, is what about the other kids? What
about the rest of the public schools? This is not the way to help them.
[[Page H2620]]
Mr. Speaker, this may be the only way to help them. This kind of
choice program is operating in other schools, and that is what they are
telling us. This is what the former superintendent of Milwaukee public
schools says:
So what I am arguing is that we have got to support the
changes that will make the difference for kids both inside
and outside the existing system. But it is the existence of
an option outside that will help you fight, make the
improvements inside, because no matter what people say
rhetoric-wise, I can tell you, you can stand up and talk all
you want about what needs to be done, but if people know this
is the only game in town, there is absolutely nothing you can
do other than run your mouth off about what needs to happen.
It is not going to happen for the majority of kids.
This is exactly the kind of leverage that will support the reformers
and give them the opportunity to change a system that is bogged down in
bureaucracy and entrenched interest. The District of Columbia schools
have three times as many administrators per teachers as other city
schools around the country.
What else can we do if we do not do this? I will just close by saying
this: We appointed a general as the czar of the District of Columbia
public schools, and he tried for a year, and he quit.
This is a program that addresses a need we all know exists. It will
help the kids who get these scholarships, and it is going to help the
kids who remain. Let us do something for these kids. Let us reason
together about this process, and then send this bill to the President.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this so-
called District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Act.
This piece of legislation would put our educational system at risk.
Supporters of this bill argue a chance for a better education; however,
93 percent of the students in our Nation's Capital will not benefit
from this $45 million bill.
There is no evidence that vouchers are an effective way to improve
education. In fact, it leaves those students who cannot benefit from
this voucher system worse off.
Every child in the District of Columbia and across the Nation
deserves our assistance for a quality education. I urge my colleagues
to listen to the people of our Nation's Capital who want to build their
community and not dismantle a public education system of which many of
us have been beneficiaries. Make no mistake about it. The Republicans
want to dismantle public education in this country and not work to
strengthen it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining
on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has
8\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I very much respect the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and I know how hard she works to
face the problems that are in the District, which everybody
acknowledges. So I do want to say that this bill is in no way an attack
on the D.C. school system. This bill is a way to look for solutions to
help and to solve some of the problems.
Most of the people will agree, and I think it has been well
documented in the press, that there are a lot of problems in this
school system. There are problems, yes, in school systems all over the
country. It seems to be the number one issue that parents say they are
concerned about, is the education of their children.
What we are looking at doing with this bill is providing some choice
for those parents. This bill would give those parents in D.C. the same
opportunity as parents in other communities across the country have.
Last fall when the private scholarship fund, the Washington
Scholarship Fund was announced, this was only for 1,000 scholarships
that would be paid for privately. There were 7,573 children who
applied. That is one out of every six eligible children in the District
applied.
I think that sends a very strong message that there are parents in
the D.C. school system who would like and appreciate their child to
have that choice. This does not take any money away from the school
system. This is additional money, additional dollars that are going
into this program.
Competition is what has driven America. Competition works with
students. Students thrive on competition. Business thrives on
competition. There is no reason our school system could not thrive on
competition. It is very healthy in America, and it makes things run.
I would also like to just say for the record that my understanding is
that the constitutional issue was a State constitutional issue in both
of those cases. This is not something Federal.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, let me correct the gentlewoman from North
Carolina on both of the decisions, both the Wisconsin and the Ohio
decisions. The courts looked both to their State constitution and
specifically, specifically grounded their decisions on the Constitution
of the United States of America as well.
{time} 1115
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the
bill. Quite frankly, the District of Columbia, in my judgment, is a
city in trouble, with deep problems. We have individuals in trouble,
families in trouble, and reduced population. Families are, in fact,
moving out.
I think some of the initiatives that have been made to try to invest
in the public schools in terms of reading and some of the other
voluntary efforts are good but not nearly enough considering what we
really have to accomplish.
This bill, frankly, indicts the D.C. public schools. The D.C. public
schools are not the problem. They are the solution. The problem is in
the broader community. And by taking dollars away and not facing up to
this and suggesting we are going to abandon those schools, we are
sending the wrong message.
One of the messages was to let a military general run it. Well, after
a year he quit. It is a tough job. He could not handle any more of this
task. I appreciate that. I understand it. I taught for about 10 years
myself, and I do not know I want to go back into the St. Paul
Minneapolis, schools today and try to teach much less administrate the
whole district.
But the fact is, we have to invest in these kids. We have to invest
in this community. The old paradigm of getting by that worked when I
was in school or when I was teaching does not work.
Look at what is happening in Chicago. Seven in the morning till seven
at night. We talk about kids entering school, and they actually go
backwards. The fact is, if you try to plot those kids in some of these
schools, we will find the population of students in September is
practically 100 percent different in May. There is no continuity. How
can anyone teach under those circumstance?
These are the types of problems we face as they come through the
door. Does anyone in this Chamber or in this country seriously believe
that the people that have devoted their lives to public education are
somehow not interested in kids? That is fundamentally what these
statements on the floor of Congress are saying.
We have public education for democracy to educate the people in this
country, to bring them forward. But the type of students we are
getting, the kids we are getting, have more problems, and we have to
meet those needs.
It is a big investment. It may mean choosing between weapon systems
and investment in people, but Congress has not been willing to do that.
We are trying to buy off on the cheap with these vouchers. I think
these kids are worth a decent investment not a gimmick which only
offers cosmetic pseudo solutions.
There is perhaps no issue more important to the future of this
country than education. As an educator, it has always been a priority
of mine to ensure that our children are given the
[[Page H2621]]
chance to partake in a quality learning environment. While I understand
that confidence in our public school system has eroded, the solutions
proposed don't address the problem. A voucher program is not a
reasonable or adequate solution to current challenges and problems in
the public schools of D.C. and our nation.
All Americans have a stake in our public schools. Public schools were
established to provide equality of the most basic and important
opportunity--the opportunity to learn. However, voucher programs would
make schools more inequitable than they already are and widen the gap
between some privileged and the vast majority underprivileged students.
Proponents of the school voucher initiatives maintain that this
system would bring healthy competition into the educational system.
This is an unfair assumption, however, because public schools have
greater limitations and restrictions than their private counterparts.
For example, private schools are allowed to pick and choose and exclude
students, while public schools must accept every student, regardless of
past academic achievements. Also, it is unclear that physically and
mentally disabled students would be considered in such plans.
Currently, private schools are not required to include special services
for these students.
Make no mistake, a voucher program redirects public funds from public
schools to private schools. This shift leaves public schools--which far
outnumber private schools--with less sufficient resources. Expanding
educational choice for some students should not come at the expense of
others. Rather than siphoning students away from public schools, and
the abandonment of the D.C. public schools, we should be focusing our
efforts on the important mission of improving such schools and the
schooling within. This legislation provides a select few students with
vouchers, while providing no answers for the 76,000 students left
behind in the D.C. public schools.
Accept the implicit statement that Congress has given up on D.C.
schools. The same money spent on vouchers could be better used for
teacher training, smaller classes, expanded support systems and a host
of other important improvements. Instead of this political solution, we
ought to help all 78,000 children improve their skills with the same
money that would provide just 2,000 children with private school
educations. Vouchers anticipated under this act help only 3% of the
children in D.C. schools.
The consideration of choice options will no doubt be influenced by
many factors. However, let's keep in mind that children are our
nation's most precious resource--all of our future. Rather than voting
for a program that will only benefit a select number of students, we
must ensure that all of our children are provided with the best
possible opportunity to learn so that they are prepared for the
challenges of the new millennium. Let's can the new B-2 bombers or the
missile defense system and put students first. Let's invest to make
every child in D.C. a winner.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the District of Columbia Student
Opportunity Scholarship Act. If ever there was a national priority to
do something about the state of education in this country, K through
12, it is now. That is why I rise in support of this initiative as well
as supporting the initiative laid out by President Clinton.
I am a product of the public school systems. I went to a public
college. I do not indict the public school system; in fact, I revere
it. But there are problems.
And in the District of Columbia, where this is supposed to be the
shining beacon of opportunity, of democracy, we have a serious problem.
We are saying it is okay for children of people who work in the
administration, whether it be the Democrat administration or the
Republican administration before it, it is okay for the children of
Members of Congress all to go to private schools, because we can do
something about it, but let us trap in a failing public school those
kids who come from families who do not have the means to escape a
failing system.
Now, that is not an indictment of all public schools, but here in the
District of Columbia, that shining beacon of democracy, we cannot get
our hands around the problem. So we say to these parents, sorry, your
kids must go to these failing schools, but I, as a Member of Congress,
will send my kids to private schools. I, as a member of the Clinton
administration, will send my kid to private schools.
Why do we not embrace, all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike,
the vast initiatives that will put this Nation on record as making a
priority over the next 25 years of improving the excellence of public
schools across this country?
Let us go for voluntary testing standards. Let us go for 100,000 more
teachers in the classroom to reduce the size. Let us put subject matter
back in the Ed schools, not just method. Let us go for teacher training
and do the kinds of things that will build success and assure that the
United States of America remains number one in the global economy for
our children and our grandchildren to come and that we do not rest on
the laurels of success of the last 100 years and think that everything
will be all right.
We have serious problems in our education system K through 12, and we
have an obligation as a Nation to deal with those problems. Keep
decision-making local, keep control in our States, but let us put the
Federal Government on record as wanting to do something about
deteriorating schools and overcrowded schools and crowded classrooms.
If we care about our children, we will put this initiative forward.
We will pass this initiative to give some choice to kids who are
trapped in a failing system.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The preceding speaker may be speaking for Republican Members of
Congress, but my three children graduated from public schools, and I
know many Members on my side of the aisle whose children attend public
schools.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez).
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, look at this little girl, one of nine children. Her
father was a sugar cane cutter. Her mother sold food to the sugar cane
workers in the sugar cane plantations to help make ends meet. This
little girl would have never gone to college if we had turned our backs
on public schools. This little girl would certainly never have become a
Member of Congress if we had turned our backs on public schools.
My colleagues, do not be fooled. This bill is an abandonment of our
Nation's commitment to public schools and public education. This bill
tells that little girl and millions and millions of children like her
that we are giving up hope on providing them with a quality education.
The Republican leadership wants to take $45 million away from public
education to provide 3 percent of D.C. schoolchildren with vouchers
that they do not want and will not be able to use. That is so shameful.
That is not the way that we strengthen public schools in our Nation. We
strengthen public schools and public education by investing more
resources, not taking it away from them.
What sense does that make? It makes sense if we want to kill public
education. That is what the Republicans intend to do under this bill,
kill public education. Vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is a terrible rule. This is a terrible bill. This is a closed
rule. We have been denied the opportunity for the one representative
from the District of Columbia to even be heard on this matter, to offer
an amendment.
I urge this rule be rejected and this bill be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I have heard several statements
made this morning and I want to make an effort, hopefully, to correct
the record and set the record straight.
One of the things that I heard earlier in argument concerning this
rule was that this legislation would only help so many students, about
2,000 students, and that this is an experiment for D.C. public schools.
And the essence of the comments were that why just do it here in D.C.?
If we are not going to do it elsewhere, then it is a bad experiment.
[[Page H2622]]
Well, I would like to note for the record that our former colleague,
Floyd Flake, a Democrat from New York, and the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Jim Talent) and myself, all three of us offered a scholarship
program about, I guess, last October. That was defeated. And that
scholarship program would have been nationwide. We were proposing to do
the same thing in all 50 States that we are proposing doing here in the
District of Columbia this morning. And just for the record, about 90
percent of Republicans supported that and about 95 percent of Democrats
voted against it.
But there are several other things that I would like to make note for
the record. The question was asked, does the scholarship bill not drain
D.C. public schools of the resources they desperately need?
And the answer to that is an emphatic no. The legislation would not
take one dime away from D.C. public schools. It is over and above what
money goes to D.C. public schools. The funding for this proposal would
not come out of the district school budget. In fact, under the bill,
per-student spending for public schools would increase, because the
budget will remain the same, but there will be 2,000 fewer students in
the public school system.
Another question is, is the amount of the scholarship not too small
for the parents to afford to send their children to all but a handful
of schools?
Well, there are 88 private schools inside the Washington Beltway that
cost less than $4,000 per student, including 60 that cost less than
$3,200. These schools include Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and private
nonsectarian schools.
Another question that has been raised this morning is, will private
schools not just cherrypick the brightest students and leave the public
schools with the students who need the most help?
Well, the scholarships do not go to the schools. They are awarded to
parents. The parents decide where the children go. So the parents, if
there is any cherrypicking, the parents will be the ones doing the
cherrypicking. They will pick the best schools. The parents will. Not
the teachers, not the school system, not the government, but the
parents will determine where their children go to school.
There is another question under the bill, is will schools not be able
to discriminate against children, African American children, or against
any other group of children that the legislation does not protect?
Section 7 of this bill specifically prohibits discrimination. It
reads, ``An eligible institution participating in the scholarship
program under this subtitle shall not engage in any practice that
discriminates on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex.''
It also specifically states in section 8 that nothing in the bill
shall affect the rights of students or the obligations of the District
of Columbia public schools under the Individuals With Disabilities Act.
Nothing in the bill waives any current Federal, State or local statute
protecting civil rights. In fact, private and religious schools in the
District today are already subject to D.C. civil rights laws, one of
the most expansive in the country.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, good public schools should not
be threatened by this legislation. We talk about how money is going,
that we are taking money from public schools and putting it into the
private school system. We fail to overlook that the money from this
program is over and above the D.C. public school funding.
And we talk about how we are taking money from public schools. Let me
tell my colleagues, when I went to Congressman Flake's district and
looked at his school system up there, and I have traveled around the
country and looked at different private school programs and what they
are doing and what the Catholics in New York are doing, and we talk
about cherrypicking, there are private schools in America today where
they take the lowest on the totem poll.
{time} 1130
Say, give us the most challenging student that they have. We will
take them. We will prepare school just for them. But we talk about
cherry-picking, we talk about where the money is going and how we are
taking money from public schools.
And I heard Floyd Flake. Floyd Flake reminded me of something very
important that I think we all should note and all should remember. He
said this. He said, we are talking about taking money from public
schools. He said, our prison system is what is taking money from public
schools, because rather than spending the money on our kids to read,
write, and do the arithmetic, putting them in quality venues, we end up
spending $25,000 or $30,000 a year because they cannot read, write, or
do the arithmetic but put them in prison.
So I support my colleagues on the Democratic side and Republican side
as well to say, let us support this rule. Let us support this
legislation. This is good public policy.
Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. As this
legislation is the result of a negotiated compromise and the work of
both Houses, I do believe that a closed rule is appropriate.
No one can deny the children of our Capitol City are in trouble.
Almost every measurable statistic proves that the D.C. school system is
failing these children. One in particular, though, is staggering--85
percent of D.C. public school graduates who enter the University of
District Columbia need remedial coursework before beginning their
college studies! But our focus should be on children and families, not
statistics. These families should not be forced to tolerate failure--
they should be empowered with choice so that their kids can succeed.
Given the dismal state of the D.C. school system and the common sense
approach this legislation takes, it is difficult to understand why some
of my colleagues are so opposed to this bill. S. 1502 is straight
forward--it adds $7 million of new money so that 2,000 kids can receive
scholarships to attend the school of their choice and an equal number
of students may receive tutorial assistance. That means more money per
pupil, not less. This is not about taking away from public education,
it is about returning accountability to public education!
Mr. Speaker, school choice is working in my district because it
returns accountability to parents and families, rather than education
bureaucrats. Low-income D.C. residents support scholarships by a 59 to
17 margin. The demand is there, the need has been proven beyond
question and today we are acting. I commend Mr. Armey, Mr. Lipinski,
and others for their bipartisan leadership on this issue.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hulshof). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 199, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 117]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
[[Page H2623]]
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--9
Bateman
Dixon
Gonzalez
Hall (TX)
Jefferson
Kennelly
Meek (FL)
Sandlin
Smith (OR)
{time} 1152
Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________