[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2623-H2629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STUDENT OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP ACT OF 1997
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 413, I call up
the Senate bill (S. 1502) entitled the ``District of Columbia Student
Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997'', and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of S. 1502 is as follows:
S. 1502
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS; PRECEDENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``District
of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997''.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Public education in the District of Columbia is in a
crisis, as evidenced by the following:
(A) The District of Columbia schools have the lowest
average of any school system in the Nation on the National
Assessment of Education Progress.
(B) 72 percent of fourth graders in the District of
Columbia tested below basic proficiency on the National
Assessment of Education Progress in 1994.
(C) Since 1991, there has been a net decline in the reading
skills of District of Columbia students as measured in scores
on the standardized Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills.
(D) At least 40 percent of District of Columbia students
drop out of or leave the school system before graduation.
(E) The National Education Goals Panel reported in 1996
that both students and teachers in District of Columbia
schools are subjected to levels of violence that are twice
the national average.
(F) Nearly two-thirds of District of Columbia teachers
reported that violent student behavior is a serious
impediment to teaching.
(G) Many of the District of Columbia's 152 schools are in a
state of terrible disrepair, including leaking roofs,
bitterly cold classrooms, and numerous fire code violations.
(2) Significant improvements in the education of
educationally deprived children in the District of Columbia
can be accomplished by--
(A) increasing educational opportunities for the children
by expanding the range of educational choices that best meet
the needs of the children;
(B) fostering diversity and competition among school
programs for the children;
(C) providing the families of the children more of the
educational choices already available to affluent families;
and
(D) enhancing the overall quality of education in the
District of Columbia by increasing parental involvement in
the direction of the education of the children.
(3) The 350 private schools in the District of Columbia and
the surrounding area offer a more safe and stable learning
environment than many of the public schools.
(4) Costs are often much lower in private schools than
corresponding costs in public schools.
(5) Not all children are alike and therefore there is no
one school or program that fits the needs of all children.
(6) The formation of sound values and moral character is
crucial to helping young people escape from lives of poverty,
family break-up, drug abuse, crime, and school failure.
(7) In addition to offering knowledge and skills, education
should contribute positively to the formation of the internal
norms and values which are vital to a child's success in life
and to the well-being of society.
(8) Schools should help to provide young people with a
sound moral foundation which is consistent with the values of
their parents. To find such a school, parents need a full
range of choice to determine where their children can best be
educated.
(c) Precedents.--The United States Supreme Court has
determined that programs giving parents choice and increased
input in their children's education, including the choice of
a religious education, do not violate the Constitution. The
Supreme Court has held that as long as the beneficiary
decides where education funds will be spent on such
individual's behalf, public funds can be used for education
in a religious institution because the public entity has
neither advanced nor hindered a particular religion and
therefore has not violated the establishment clause of the
first amendment to the Constitution. Supreme Court precedents
include--
(1) Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); Pierce v.
Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); and Meyer v.
Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) which held that parents have
the primary role in and are the primary decision makers in
all areas regarding the education and upbringing of their
children;
(2) Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983) which declared a
Minnesota tax deduction program that provided State income
tax benefits for educational expenditures by parents,
including tuition in religiously affiliated schools, does not
violate the Constitution;
(3) Witters v. Department of Services for the Blind, 474
U.S. 481 (1986) in which the Supreme Court ruled unanimously
that public funds for the vocational training of the blind
could be used at a Bible college for ministry training; and
(4) Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S.
1 (1993) which held that a deaf child could receive an
interpreter, paid for by the public, in a private religiously
affiliated school under the Individual with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et
[[Page H2624]]
seq.). The case held that providing an interpreter in a
religiously affiliated school did not violate the
establishment clause of the first amendment of the
Constitution.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) the term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors of the
Corporation established under section 3(b)(1);
(2) the term ``Corporation'' means the District of Columbia
Scholarship Corporation established under section 3(a);
(3) the term ``eligible institution''--
(A) in the case of an eligible institution serving a
student who receives a tuition scholarship under section
4(c)(1), means a public, private, or independent elementary
or secondary school; and
(B) in the case of an eligible institution serving a
student who receives an enhanced achievement scholarship
under section 4(c)(2), means an elementary or secondary
school, or an entity that provides services to a student
enrolled in an elementary or secondary school to enhance such
student's achievement through instruction described in
section 4(c)(2);
(4) the term ``parent'' includes a legal guardian or other
person standing in loco parentis; and
(5) the term ``poverty line'' means the income official
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section
673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C.
9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
SEC. 3. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOLARSHIP CORPORATION.
(a) General Requirements.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be established a
private, nonprofit corporation, to be known as the ``District
of Columbia Scholarship Corporation'', which is neither an
agency nor establishment of the United States Government or
the District of Columbia Government.
(2) Duties.--The Corporation shall have the responsibility
and authority to administer, publicize, and evaluate the
scholarship program in accordance with this Act, and to
determine student and school eligibility for participation in
such program.
(3) Consultation.--The Corporation shall exercise its
authority--
(A) in a manner consistent with maximizing educational
opportunities for the maximum number of interested families;
and
(B) in consultation with the District of Columbia Board of
Education or entity exercising administrative jurisdiction
over the District of Columbia Public Schools, the
Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools,
and other school scholarship programs in the District of
Columbia.
(4) Application of provisions.--The Corporation shall be
subject to the provisions of this Act, and, to the extent
consistent with this Act, to the District of Columbia
Nonprofit Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-501 et seq.).
(5) Residence.--The Corporation shall have its place of
business in the District of Columbia and shall be considered,
for purposes of venue in civil actions, to be a resident of
the District of Columbia.
(6) Fund.--There is established in the Treasury a fund that
shall be known as the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund,
to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury.
(7) Disbursement.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall make
available and disburse to the Corporation, before October 15
of each fiscal year or not later than 15 days after the date
of enactment of an Act making appropriations for the District
of Columbia for such year, whichever occurs later, such funds
as have been appropriated to the District of Columbia
Scholarship Fund for the fiscal year in which such
disbursement is made.
(8) Availability.--Funds authorized to be appropriated
under this Act shall remain available until expended.
(9) Uses.--Funds authorized to be appropriated under this
Act shall be used by the Corporation in a prudent and
financially responsible manner, solely for scholarships,
contracts, and administrative costs.
(10) Authorization.--
(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund--
(i) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
(ii) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
(iii) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through
2002.
(B) Limitation.--Not more than 7.5 percent of the amount
appropriated to carry out this Act for any fiscal year may be
used by the Corporation for salaries and administrative
costs.
(b) Organization and Management; Board of Directors.--
(1) Board of directors; membership.--
(A) In general.--The Corporation shall have a Board of
Directors (referred to in this Act as the ``Board''),
comprised of 7 members with 6 members of the Board appointed
by the President not later than 30 days after receipt of
nominations from the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the Majority Leader of the Senate.
(B) House nominations.--The President shall appoint 3 of
the members from a list of 9 individuals nominated by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with
the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
(C) Senate nominations.--The President shall appoint 3
members from a list of 9 individuals nominated by the
Majority Leader of the Senate in consultation with the
Minority Leader of the Senate.
(D) Deadline.--The Speaker of the House of Representatives
and Majority Leader of the Senate shall submit their
nominations to the President not later than 30 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(E) Appointee of mayor.--The Mayor shall appoint 1 member
of the Board not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(F) Possible interim members.--If the President does not
appoint the 6 members of the Board in the 30-day period
described in subparagraph (A), then the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate
shall each appoint 2 members of the Board, and the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives and the Minority
Leader of the Senate shall each appoint 1 member of the
Board, from among the individuals nominated pursuant to
subparagraphs (A) and (B), as the case may be. The appointees
under the preceding sentence together with the appointee of
the Mayor, shall serve as an interim Board with all the
powers and other duties of the Board described in this Act,
until the President makes the appointments as described in
this subsection.
(2) Powers.--All powers of the Corporation shall vest in
and be exercised under the authority of the Board.
(3) Elections.--Members of the Board annually shall elect 1
of the members of the Board to be the Chairperson of the
Board.
(4) Residency.--All members appointed to the Board shall be
residents of the District of Columbia at the time of
appointment and while serving on the Board.
(5) Nonemployee.--No member of the Board may be an employee
of the United States Government or the District of Columbia
Government when appointed to or during tenure on the Board,
unless the individual is on a leave of absence from such a
position while serving on the Board.
(6) Incorporation.--The members of the initial Board shall
serve as incorporators and shall take whatever steps are
necessary to establish the Corporation under the District of
Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-501 et
seq.).
(7) General term.--The term of office of each member of the
Board shall be 5 years, except that any member appointed to
fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term
for which the predecessor was appointed shall be appointed
for the remainder of such term.
(8) Consecutive term.--No member of the Board shall be
eligible to serve in excess of 2 consecutive terms of 5 years
each. A partial term shall be considered as 1 full term. Any
vacancy on the Board shall not affect the Board's power, but
shall be filled in a manner consistent with this Act.
(9) No benefit.--No part of the income or assets of the
Corporation shall inure to the benefit of any Director,
officer, or employee of the Corporation, except as salary or
reasonable compensation for services.
(10) Political activity.--The Corporation may not
contribute to or otherwise support any political party or
candidate for elective public office.
(11) No officers or employees.--The members of the Board
shall not, by reason of such membership, be considered to be
officers or employees of the United States Government or of
the District of Columbia Government.
(12) Stipends.--The members of the Board, while attending
meetings of the Board or while engaged in duties related to
such meetings or other activities of the Board pursuant to
this Act, shall be provided a stipend. Such stipend shall be
at the rate of $150 per day for which the member of the Board
is officially recorded as having worked, except that no
member may be paid a total stipend amount in any calendar
year in excess of $5,000.
(c) Officers and Staff.--
(1) Executive director.--The Corporation shall have an
Executive Director, and such other staff, as may be appointed
by the Board for terms and at rates of compensation, not to
exceed level EG-16 of the Educational Service of the District
of Columbia, to be fixed by the Board.
(2) Staff.--With the approval of the Board, the Executive
Director may appoint and fix the salary of such additional
personnel as the Executive Director considers appropriate.
(3) Annual rate.--No staff of the Corporation may be
compensated by the Corporation at an annual rate of pay
greater than the annual rate of pay of the Executive
Director.
(4) Service.--All officers and employees of the Corporation
shall serve at the pleasure of the Board.
(5) Qualification.--No political test or qualification may
be used in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking other
personnel actions with respect to officers, agents, or
employees of the Corporation.
(d) Powers of the Corporation.--
(1) Generally.--The Corporation is authorized to obtain
grants from, and make contracts with, individuals and with
private, State, and Federal agencies, organizations, and
institutions.
(2) Hiring authority.--The Corporation may hire, or accept
the voluntary services of, consultants, experts, advisory
boards, and panels to aid the Corporation in carrying out
this Act.
(e) Financial Management and Records.--
(1) Audits.--The financial statements of the Corporation
shall be--
[[Page H2625]]
(A) maintained in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles for nonprofit corporations; and
(B) audited annually by independent certified public
accountants.
(2) Report.--The report for each such audit shall be
included in the annual report to Congress required by section
11(c).
(f) Administrative Responsibilities.--
(1) Scholarship application schedule and procedures.--Not
later than 30 days after the initial Board is appointed and
the first Executive Director of the Corporation is hired
under this Act, the Corporation shall implement a schedule
and procedures for processing applications for, and awarding,
student scholarships under this Act. The schedule and
procedures shall include establishing a list of certified
eligible institutions, distributing scholarship information
to parents and the general public (including through a
newspaper of general circulation), and establishing deadlines
for steps in the scholarship application and award process.
(2) Institutional applications and eligibility.--
(A) In general.--An eligible institution that desires to
participate in the scholarship program under this Act shall
file an application with the Corporation for certification
for participation in the scholarship program under this Act
that shall--
(i) demonstrate that the eligible institution has operated
with not less than 25 students during the 3 years preceding
the year for which the determination is made unless the
eligible institution is applying for certification as a new
eligible institution under subparagraph (C);
(ii) contain an assurance that the eligible institution
will comply with all applicable requirements of this Act;
(iii) contain an annual statement of the eligible
institution's budget; and
(iv) describe the eligible institution's proposed program,
including personnel qualifications and fees.
(B) Certification.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
not later than 60 days after receipt of an application in
accordance with subparagraph (A), the Corporation shall
certify an eligible institution to participate in the
scholarship program under this Act.
(ii) Continuation.--An eligible institution's certification
to participate in the scholarship program shall continue
unless such eligible institution's certification is revoked
in accordance with subparagraph (D).
(C) New eligible institution.--
(i) In general.--An eligible institution that did not
operate with at least 25 students in the 3 years preceding
the year for which the determination is made may apply for a
1-year provisional certification to participate in the
scholarship program under this Act for a single year by
providing to the Corporation not later than July 1 of the
year preceding the year for which the determination is made--
(I) a list of the eligible institution's board of
directors;
(II) letters of support from not less than 10 members of
the community served by such eligible institution;
(III) a business plan;
(IV) an intended course of study;
(V) assurances that the eligible institution will begin
operations with not less than 25 students;
(VI) assurances that the eligible institution will comply
with all applicable requirements of this Act; and
(VII) a statement that satisfies the requirements of
clauses (ii) and (iv) of subparagraph (A).
(ii) Certification.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of receipt of an application described in clause (i), the
Corporation shall certify in writing the eligible
institution's provisional certification to participate in the
scholarship program under this Act unless the Corporation
determines that good cause exists to deny certification.
(iii) Renewal of provisional certification.--After receipt
of an application under clause (i) from an eligible
institution that includes a statement of the eligible
institution's budget completed not earlier than 12 months
before the date such application is filed, the Corporation
shall renew an eligible institution's provisional
certification for the second and third years of the school's
participation in the scholarship program under this Act
unless the Corporation finds--
(I) good cause to deny the renewal, including a finding of
a pattern of violation of requirements described in paragraph
(3)(A); or
(II) consistent failure of 25 percent or more of the
students receiving scholarships under this Act and attending
such school to make appropriate progress (as determined by
the Corporation) in academic achievement.
(iv) Denial of certification.--If provisional certification
or renewal of provisional certification under this subsection
is denied, then the Corporation shall provide a written
explanation to the eligible institution of the reasons for
such denial.
(D) Revocation of eligibility.--
(i) In general.--The Corporation, after notice and hearing,
may revoke an eligible institution's certification to
participate in the scholarship program under this Act for a
year succeeding the year for which the determination is made
for--
(I) good cause, including a finding of a pattern of
violation of program requirements described in paragraph
(3)(A); or
(II) consistent failure of 25 percent or more of the
students receiving scholarships under this Act and attending
such school to make appropriate progress (as determined by
the Corporation) in academic achievement.
(ii) Explanation.--If the certification of an eligible
institution is revoked, the Corporation shall provide a
written explanation of the Corporation's decision to such
eligible institution and require a pro rata refund of the
proceeds of the scholarship funds received under this Act.
(3) Participation requirements for eligible institutions.--
(A) Requirements.--Each eligible institution participating
in the scholarship program under this Act shall--
(i) provide to the Corporation not later than June 30 of
each year the most recent annual statement of the eligible
institution's budget; and
(ii) charge a student that receives a scholarship under
this Act not more than the cost of tuition and mandatory fees
for, and transportation to attend, such eligible institution
as other students who are residents of the District of
Columbia and enrolled in such eligible institution.
(B) Compliance.--The Corporation may require documentation
of compliance with the requirements of subparagraph (A), but
neither the Corporation nor any governmental entity may
impose requirements upon an eligible institution as a
condition for participation in the scholarship program under
this Act, other than requirements established under this Act.
SEC. 4. SCHOLARSHIPS AUTHORIZED.
(a) Eligible Students.--The Corporation is authorized to
award tuition scholarships under subsection (c)(1) and
enhanced achievement scholarships under subsection (c)(2) to
students in kindergarten through grade 12--
(1) who are residents of the District of Columbia; and
(2) whose family income does not exceed 185 percent of the
poverty line.
(b) Scholarship Priority.--
(1) First.--The Corporation first shall award scholarships
to students described in subsection (a) who--
(A) are enrolled in a District of Columbia public school or
preparing to enter a District of Columbia public
kindergarten, except that this subparagraph shall apply only
for academic years 1997-1998, 1998-1999, and 1999-2000; or
(B) have received a scholarship from the Corporation for
the academic year preceding the academic year for which the
scholarship is awarded.
(2) Second.--If funds remain for a fiscal year for awarding
scholarships after awarding scholarships under paragraph (1),
the Corporation shall award scholarships to students who are
described in subsection (a), not described in paragraph (1),
and otherwise eligible for a scholarship under this Act.
(3) Lottery selection.--The Corporation shall award
scholarships to students under this subsection using a
lottery selection process whenever the amount made available
to carry out this Act for a fiscal year is insufficient to
award a scholarship to each student who is eligible to
receive a scholarship under this Act for the fiscal year.
(c) Use of Scholarship.--
(1) Tuition scholarships.--A tuition scholarship may be
used for the payment of the cost of the tuition and mandatory
fees for, and transportation to attend, an eligible
institution located within the geographic boundaries of the
District of Columbia; Montgomery County, Maryland; Prince
Georges County, Maryland; Arlington County, Virginia;
Alexandria City, Virginia; Falls Church City, Virginia;
Fairfax City, Virginia; or Fairfax County, Virginia.
(2) Enhanced achievement scholarship.--An enhanced
achievement scholarship may be used only for the payment of
the costs of tuition and mandatory fees for, and
transportation to attend, a program of instruction provided
by an eligible institution which enhances student achievement
of the core curriculum and is operated outside of regular
school hours to supplement the regular school program.
(e) Not School Aid.--A scholarship under this Act shall be
considered assistance to the student and shall not be
considered assistance to an eligible institution.
SEC. 5. SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS.
(a) Awards.--From the funds made available under this Act,
the Corporation shall award a scholarship to a student and
make scholarship payments in accordance with section 6.
(b) Notification.--Each eligible institution that receives
the proceeds of a scholarship payment under subsection (a)
shall notify the Corporation not later than 10 days after--
(1) the date that a student receiving a scholarship under
this Act is enrolled, of the name, address, and grade level
of such student;
(2) the date of the withdrawal or expulsion of any student
receiving a scholarship under this Act, of the withdrawal or
expulsion; and
(3) the date that a student receiving a scholarship under
this Act is refused admission, of the reasons for such a
refusal.
(c) Tuition Scholarship.--
(1) Equal to or below poverty line.--For a student whose
family income is equal to or below the poverty line, a
tuition scholarship may not exceed the lesser of--
(A) the cost of tuition and mandatory fees for, and
transportation to attend, an eligible institution; or
(B) $3,200 for fiscal year 1998, with such amount adjusted
in proportion to changes in
[[Page H2626]]
the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by
the Department of Labor for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2002.
(2) Above poverty line.--For a student whose family income
is greater than the poverty line, but not more than 185
percent of the poverty line, a tuition scholarship may not
exceed the lesser of--
(A) 75 percent of the cost of tuition and mandatory fees
for, and transportation to attend, an eligible institution;
or
(B) $2,400 for fiscal year 1998, with such amount adjusted
in proportion to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all
urban consumers published by the Department of Labor for each
of fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
(d) Enhanced Achievement Scholarship.--An enhanced
achievement scholarship may not exceed the lesser of--
(1) the costs of tuition and mandatory fees for, and
transportation to attend, a program of instruction at an
eligible institution; or
(2) $500 for 1998, with such amount adjusted in proportion
to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban
consumers published by the Department of Labor for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
SEC. 6. SCHOLARSHIP PAYMENTS.
(a) Payments.--The Corporation shall make scholarship
payments to the parent of a student awarded a scholarship
under this Act.
(b) Distribution of Scholarship Funds.--Scholarship funds
may be distributed by check, or another form of disbursement,
issued by the Corporation and made payable directly to a
parent of a student awarded a scholarship under this Act. The
parent may use the scholarship funds only for payment of
tuition, mandatory fees, and transportation costs as
described in this Act.
(c) Pro Rata Amounts for Student Withdrawal.--If a student
receiving a scholarship under this Act withdraws or is
expelled from an eligible institution after the proceeds of a
scholarship is paid to the eligible institution, then the
eligible institution shall refund to the Corporation on a pro
rata basis the proportion of any such proceeds received for
the remaining days of the school year. Such refund shall
occur not later than 30 days after the date of the withdrawal
or expulsion of the student.
SEC. 7. CIVIL RIGHTS.
(a) In General.--An eligible institution participating in
the scholarship program under this Act shall not discriminate
on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(b) Applicability and Construction with respect to
Discrimination on the Basis of Sex.--
(1) Applicability.--With respect to discrimination on the
basis of sex, subsection (a) shall not apply to an eligible
institution that is controlled by a religious organization if
the application of subsection (a) is inconsistent with the
religious tenets of the eligible institution.
(2) Construction.--With respect to discrimination on the
basis of sex, nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to
require any person, or public or private entity to provide or
pay, or to prohibit any such person or entity from providing
or paying, for any benefit or service, including the use of
facilities, related to an abortion. Nothing in the preceding
sentence shall be construed to permit a penalty to be imposed
on any person or individual because such person or individual
is seeking or has received any benefit or service related to
a legal abortion.
(3) Single-sex schools, classes, or activities.--With
respect to discrimination on the basis of sex, nothing in
subsection (a) shall be construed to prevent a parent from
choosing, or an eligible institution from offering, a single-
sex school, class, or activity.
(c) Revocation.--Notwithstanding section 3(f)(2)(D), if the
Corporation determines that an eligible institution
participating in the scholarship program under this Act is in
violation of subsection (a), then the Corporation shall
revoke such eligible institution's certification to
participate in the program.
SEC. 8. CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.
Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of students, or
the obligations of the District of Columbia public schools,
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
SEC. 9. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
prevent any eligible institution which is operated by,
supervised by, controlled by, or connected to, a religious
organization from employing, admitting, or giving preference
to, persons of the same religion to the extent determined by
such institution to promote the religious purpose for which
the eligible institution is established or maintained.
(b) Sectarian Purposes.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prohibit the use of funds made available under
this Act for sectarian educational purposes, or to require an
eligible institution to remove religious art, icons,
scripture, or other symbols.
SEC. 10. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--An eligible institution participating in
the scholarship program under this Act shall report to the
Corporation not later than July 30 of each year in a manner
prescribed by the Corporation, the following data:
(1) Student achievement in the eligible institution's
programs.
(2) Grade advancement for scholarship students.
(3) Disciplinary actions taken with respect to scholarship
students.
(4) Graduation, college admission test scores, and college
admission rates, if applicable for scholarship students.
(5) Types and amounts of parental involvement required for
all families of scholarship students.
(6) Student attendance for scholarship and nonscholarship
students.
(7) General information on curriculum, programs,
facilities, credentials of personnel, and disciplinary rules
at the eligible institution.
(8) Number of scholarship students enrolled.
(9) Such other information as may be required by the
Corporation for program appraisal.
(b) Confidentiality.--No personal identifiers may be used
in such report, except that the Corporation may request such
personal identifiers solely for the purpose of verification.
SEC. 11. PROGRAM APPRAISAL.
(a) Study.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall enter
into a contract, with an evaluating agency that has
demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations, for an
independent evaluation of the scholarship program under this
Act, including--
(1) a comparison of test scores between scholarship
students and District of Columbia public school students of
similar backgrounds, taking into account the students'
academic achievement at the time of the award of their
scholarships and the students' family income level;
(2) a comparison of graduation rates between scholarship
students and District of Columbia public school students of
similar backgrounds, taking into account the students'
academic achievement at the time of the award of their
scholarships and the students' family income level;
(3) the satisfaction of parents of scholarship students
with the scholarship program; and
(4) the impact of the scholarship program on the District
of Columbia public schools, including changes in the public
school enrollment, and any improvement in the academic
performance of the public schools.
(b) Public Review of Data.--All data gathered in the course
of the study described in subsection (a) shall be made
available to the public upon request except that no personal
identifiers shall be made public.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than September 1 of each
year, the Corporation shall submit a progress report on the
scholarship program to the appropriate committees of
Congress. Such report shall include a review of how
scholarship funds were expended, including the initial
academic achievement levels of students who have participated
in the scholarship program.
(d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for the study described in subsection (a), $250,000, which
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 12. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Jurisdiction.--
(1) In General.--The United States District Court for the
District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction in any action
challenging the constitutionality of the scholarship program
under this Act and shall provide expedited review.
(2) Standing.--The parent of any student eligible to
receive a scholarship under this Act shall have standing in
an action challenging the constitutionality of the
scholarship program under this Act.
(b) Appeal to Supreme Court.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any order of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia which is issued pursuant
to an action brought under subsection (a) shall be reviewable
by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
SEC. 13. APPROPRIATION OF INITIAL FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO
FUND.
There are hereby appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $7,000,000 for the
District of Columbia Scholarship Fund.
SEC. 14. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall be effective for each of the fiscal years
1998 through 2002.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 413, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and a Member opposed, the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 1502 represents a legislative effort that was first
introduced in this body in 1995 by former Representative Steve
Gunderson from Wisconsin. We have continued to introduce this bill and
consider it off and on, most recently in this body as an amendment to
the D.C. appropriations bill last year. The bill was passed in the
other body at the close of last year's session and has been available
to the House for consideration at the desk since that time.
Mr. Speaker, what this legislation does is provide $7 million worth
of additional funding to the Washington,
[[Page H2627]]
D.C. School District specifically for the assistance of low-income
families in the District, that they might have greater ability within
their own family to provide educational opportunities for their
children.
In the first half of the bill, we make available for 2,000
Washington, D.C. families scholarships for up to $3,200 available by
random selection to low-income families in D.C. It is important that we
emphasize that these scholarships are available only to lower income
families of D.C., so that they may be able with those scholarships to
exercise the same choice and discretion over the education of their
children as is done regularly in this city by wealthy families.
D.C., as my colleagues know, is an interesting city in that while it
has some outstanding schools, it has other schools that are in fact
tragic failures for the children. All too often those children that are
left in these difficult schools are the children of the very poorest
citizens of the District. D.C. is a city where you have a contrast of
affluence as over and against low-income families, where the higher
income families all too often exercise the prerogatives made available
to them by their higher incomes to take their children to nonpublic
educational facilities and to move their children around. We think that
that opportunity should not be an opportunity that exists only in the
hands of wealthy people but should be made available to each child. We
believe that each and every child is God's child and should have as
much opportunity.
We have also had an opportunity by working with families through the
efforts of the privately funded Washington Scholarship Fund and other
efforts such as my own effort in Tools for Tomorrow to meet with the
children and to meet with their parents. We see the frustration, we see
the concern, we see the hope for these. Indeed, the Washington
Scholarship Fund just a few months ago announced in D.C. without
fanfare and without any marketing effort that there would be an
additional 1,000 scholarships available to low-income families.
{time} 1200
By word of mouth this information passed through the neighborhoods,
and before long they had almost 8,000 applicants. Yesterday, the 1,000
scholarships were announced as they were selected randomly, and 1,000
of these almost 8,000 families had a great joy in their lives that is
reported in the morning's paper. So that we ask initially in this bill
to make that opportunity available to an additional 2,000 families.
Second part of this bill makes possible for an additional 2,000
families to use scholarship resources from this special fund of new
money for the purposes of hiring tutors and mentors for their children
and for the purposes of acquiring educational facilities for their
children to supplement the almost frightening deficiencies that we all
too often find in the schools.
This is a situation where the need is clearly demonstrated, the
desire to do better is clearly demonstrated on the part of a large
number of families. The children are there, and the children are
anxiously awaiting the opportunity that we can make to them, and the
educational slots in the over 80 schools are there and available to the
children. Since this is new money added to the D.C. education budget,
it is inconceivable to me that anybody could oppose the Congress of the
United States with its unique jurisdictional relationship to this city
making this opportunity available to these children.
In closing my remarks, let me say very emphatically, Madam Speaker,
as emphatically as I may, this legislative effort, this $7 million,
these 2,000 scholarships, these 2,000 attendant scholarships are not
about politics, they are not about my party, they are not about their
party, they are certainly not about me, for I will never be hunting a
vote in this city. They are about the children and, quite frankly, only
about the children.
And I guess the question that I would put before this body in my
opening remarks is, are we willing to put other things second to the
children? Can we rise to the occasion of simply looking at the
children, seeing their beautiful little faces, with their hope and
their optimism, and say there is no consideration that we can weigh
against that?
Nothing can be as great as the needs of these children and our
commitment to them.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, let me begin by briefly explaining what S. 1502, the
D.C. Voucher Bill before us this morning, would do. The bill would
divert $7 million from the Federal Treasury in fiscal year 1998 and $45
million over 5 years and funnel these resources to religious and
private schools. The bill not only diverts funds from the Treasury,
where they might be available for public schools, S. 1502 also
potentially diverts money from the District of Columbia. Under the
bill, religious and private schools in Virginia and Maryland could
receive students with tuition paid by D.C. vouchers.
S. 1502 also would create a new unheard of, unprecedented layer of
bureaucracy. Instead of delegating the task of administering this
voucher program to an existing institution or to a pro bono
organization, an entirely new bureaucracy costing $500,000 annually is
required by the bill. A corporation, consisting entirely of political
appointees not responsible to D.C. residents or even to the parents
involved, would be responsible for administering the voucher program
and disbursing the federal funds.
Despite the fact that these are local schools, almost none of these
appointments would be made by a local official. Of the seven
appointees, only one would be appointed by a D.C. official. The
remaining six would be appointed by the President of the United States,
but even he would have to make his appointments from lists submitted by
the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate, none of
whom have been elected by any parent or any resident in the District of
Columbia.
Since these appointees are simply distributing vouchers, it is not
clear why it is appropriate for the task to be done by political
appointees at all.
Although home rule has been regularly violated ever since its
inception in 1974, total Federal control over the mere administration
of such a local program is without precedent and is completely at odds
with principles of devolution espoused by the Republican majority.
Astonishingly, these appointees would each be paid up to $5,000,
although the vouchers they would be distributing range from only $3,200
for tuition to $500 for tutoring. At best, the bill would allow only 3
percent of D.C. public school students, 2,000 out of nearly 80,000, to
apply for vouchers to attend religious and private schools. There is no
requirement that these schools take these students and no requirement
that these schools make any effort to retain these students or work to
eliminate any problems they may have instead of expelling them, as is
required of the public schools. Choice, therefore, would not rest with
the parents but with the religious and private schools that will apply
their own standards for admission and retention of each child.
The bill erodes antidiscrimination laws such as title VI, title IX
and the Age Discrimination Act by providing that, despite the Federal
subsidies to the schools, vouchers are not State aid for purposes of
the bill. Although the bill contains an antidiscrimination provision, a
person who suffers discrimination would be deprived of the Federal
enforcement mechanism available to public school students and would be
without any administrative mechanism to enforce her civil rights. Her
only recourse would be to file a costly civil suit in Federal court, a
remedy virtually unavailable to the low-income families to whom these
vouchers are directed.
In addition, the bill expressly permits tax dollars to support sex
discrimination by funding single sex programs. There are no safeguards
in the bill to prevent a cottage industry of new and untested religious
and private schools from competing for and receiving these federally
funded vouchers. There is no provision for accountability for the funds
to the Federal Government which grants them or accountability to anyone
else.
The sponsors of S. 1502 identify the Cleveland voucher program as a
model for their bill. That program is almost identical. It had 2,000
students, and the
[[Page H2628]]
amounts were roughly comparable, $2,500 vouchers for tuition and $260
tutoring vouchers per student. An evaluation commission by the State of
Ohio found, and I am quoting, If the background and demographic
factors, including previous achievement, are accounted for, there are
no significant differences in third grade achievement between the
scholarship students and their Cleveland school peers, end quote.
In no academic subject, reading, mathematics, social studies or
science, did the voucher students do any better than their public
school peers. Central to the Cleveland program was a feature that its
framers hoped would save its constitutionality. As with the D.C.
vouchers, the funds would go to the parent, not the religious school.
However, in 1997, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, relying both on the
State constitution and the Constitution of the United States, ruled
that publicly funded vouchers were unconstitutional because they
violate the first amendment requirement that State funds and actions
not be entangled with the operations of religiously sponsored programs.
The Ohio court held, and I am quoting, Because the scholarship
program provides direct and substantial nonneutral government aid to
sectarian schools, we hold that it has the primary effect of advancing
religion in violation of the establishment clause, end quote.
The only other court to rule on vouchers, the Wisconsin Court of
Appeals, reached the same conclusion and went even further. That court
noted that even though, quote, some parents of students participating
in the program may have their children exempted from religious
activities at sectarian schools, that does not alter the fact that
money drawn from the State treasury would underwrite precisely those
activities for other program students, end quote.
The Ohio court was unanimous, and the Wisconsin court decision was
four to one, both striking down publicly funded vouchers like those
before us on constitutional grounds.
These decisions protect religion as much as the government in order
to assure that complete freedom from government regulation, oversight
and accountability is always the case for religious institutions in our
country. Moreover, ever since President Clinton has been in office, he
has consistently opposed vouchers on the principle that public funds
should go to public schools. Because this bill represents an attempt to
gain a foothold in the federal budget and begin a drain of Federal
resources to religious and private schools, S. 1502 will be vetoed. The
statement of policy delivered this morning said, and I quote, If this
bill were presented to the President, the President's senior advisers
would recommend that the bill be vetoed, end quote.
Thus, the bill before us has little chance of becoming law, because
virtually identical bills have been found unconstitutional and because
the President of the United States has promised a veto. Unfortunately,
the D.C. students who applied were not told of these impediments and
have had their hopes raised. This is at least the third attempt by the
Republican majority to impose vouchers on the District of Columbia, a
jurisdiction powerless to stop them because the District has no
representation in the Senate and because the vote on the House floor
that I won square and fair and that the federal courts said was
entirely constitutional in the 103rd Congress was taken from me when
the Republicans assumed the majority in the 104th Congress.
District residents, like their Congresswoman, have been very critical
of their public schools, but our residents identify strongly with their
public schools and are determined to strengthen them. In 1996, the
Control Board took drastic action in ousting the elected school board
and imposing an entirely new regime precisely for the purpose of
forging a top-to-bottom reform of the public school system.
A new superintendent from Seattle, Washington, Arlene Ackerman, has
just initiated a dramatic revitalization designed to rapidly raise
student achievements. For example, D.C. students are to read 25 books
or the equivalent next year. I challenge every Member of the House to
see to it that every child in their districts reads even half that many
books next year.
{time} 1215
The Summer Stars program (Students and Teachers Achieving Results),
will make D.C. one of the very first jurisdictions in the United States
to eliminate social promotion by putting in its place a program not
only to remediate as many as 20,000 children this summer, but also to
catch others before failure sets in. To their credit, President Clinton
and the Department of Education have funded half of the $10 million
required to fund this innovative program. Although this is just the
kind of radical change Congress has been calling for, no congressional
funds have been offered to fund any part of this effort. Suggestions
that congressional support would greatly assist this program have
fallen on deaf ears.
District of Columbia residents, like the residents who participated
in all the 19 other statewide referenda, have rejected public subsidies
for religious and private schools. The other jurisdictions are, Alaska,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Utah, and Washington State. In
five States where two referenda were held, California, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington, voucher proponents lost worse on
the second vote than they did on the first. In all, there have been 20
statewide referenda and 20 resounding defeats.
In the District of Columbia, public subsidies for private and
religious schools lost by the largest margin, 9 to 1, and yet this
Member, over her objection, is faced with this bill, this afternoon.
As many as 7,500 low-income families have applied for scholarships in
the District. This response is entirely natural and predictable. There
are few low-income, or, for that matter, middle-income families in
cities or suburbs today who would not come forward if they saw full-
page advertisements in the newspapers and TV commercials calling for
people to come and get free scholarships to go to private or religious
schools. Private schools, whether in city or suburb today, usually have
a better reputation than corresponding public schools.
The District of Columbia schools are in very poor condition, and I
challenge any Member of this body to have the knowledge of how poor, to
have been more critical or to have tried harder to raise them. But
these schools mirror the condition of virtually every big-city school
system in the country, no better and no worse. In fact, the $7,000 per
pupil expenditure in the District is the second lowest in the region.
In this region, for example, the city of Alexandria, I say to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), has a per pupil expenditure of
$9,000, while my schools have $7,000.
As the District is showing, there are ways to rapidly accelerate
reform of schools, but there are also ways to rescue children today
while D.C. schools are being fixed. Just yesterday, two philanthropists
contributed $6 million in private funds for scholarships for District
kids like those who have applied for these vouchers, which every Member
in this body knows will not be available. I stand ready to work with
the majority, not only on District school reform, as I did on the D.C.
charter bill in 1996, and the Riggs-Roemer charter bill last year; I
stand ready to work with the majority again, and I welcome their
assistance in selecting any approach that must have their agreement as
much as mine.
The reading teachers for the lowest performing schools and the
Porter-Obey program that I attempted to offer as a substitute for this
voucher bill is but one example. I will go further. I am prepared to
help raise private funds for private school students. In short, I am
prepared to work with my colleagues in a collegial and bipartisan
approach to improve schools in my district. I ask them to remember and
to respect that it may be your capital of the United States, but it is
my district. In the spirit of devolution, of local control, and the
deference routinely afforded other Members, I ask that in seeking to
help the families I represent, you work through me and with me. You
will find me a willing and amiable partner.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2629]]
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller), a distinguished educator.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey)'s bill to save the D.C.
schoolchildren. D.C. schoolchildren deserve a chance to succeed. No one
debates that simple fact. However, it takes courage to overcome the
obstacles that stand in the way of so many children in the District.
Some argue that by just giving more money, we can solve the problems,
but if money was the answer, the D.C. school system should be among
America's best. The sad truth is that the D.C. schools are among
America's worst.
The D.C. youngsters attend schools of despair where they are more
likely to encounter drugs or violence than an opportunity to succeed.
We have the power to change that, but it takes courage to vote with
one's heart and not the politically easy vote. The cynics sitting there
wringing their hands and promising to reform the system from within are
not helping any children. All they are doing is helping the teachers'
union continue the downward spiral of education in this Nation's
capital.
Today, we must all show the courage to save the children by taking on
the status quo. We must vote to save the kids. Support the bill.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
Mr. STOKES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia for yielding me this time. I want to take a moment just to
congratulate her for the extraordinary leadership she has been giving
to all of us on this issue.
Madam Speaker, I know from experience that school voucher programs
are expensive, they do not work, and as the Ohio Court of Appeals
determined, they are unconstitutional. A State-supported voucher
initiative in my district which the Republicans have heralded as a
success has been little benefit to the low-income students it was
intended to reach. In fact, a recently released independent audit and
evaluation of the Cleveland school program brought to light several
critical facts about the program that should be considered in this
debate.
The audit found a flood of management flaws, including problems that
ranged from the widespread and very costly use of taxis to transport
kids to and from school, to the failure to verify financial
eligibility, to inadequate measures to monitor student attendance.
The audit shows a 41 percent cost overrun in the Cleveland voucher
program that has resulted in this school year's costs being pushed from
$7.1 million to $10 million. The cause of this misspending of State tax
dollars includes the fact that approximately 36 percent of the nearly
3,000 voucher students used taxis to get to their private schools,
costing $18 to $15 a day and totaling nearly $1.5 million. In addition,
taxi companies charged the State even when students were absent if the
parents did not notify the companies in advance.
Madam Speaker, I am a product of the Cleveland public schools. I
walked 3 miles to school every day. That education I got in the
Cleveland public school system enables me to be able to stand here in
the well of the House of Representatives today. The results of the
evaluation of the Cleveland voucher program show that this program has
attracted better achieving students; I urge a no vote on this bill.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), an ace fighter pilot and
dedicated public schoolteacher.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I would add my wife is a public school
teacher as well with a doctorate degree.
Madam Speaker, I had a high regard for General Julius Becton who led
D.C. in an almost impossible task, and have worked with Arlene Ackerman
who is going to take his place. But I want to say, Bishop McKinney
came, an African American from San Diego, that has a school of at-risk
black children in the school system, at-risk children that over 90
percent of them go on to school, and they work with special vouchers in
the program.
I live in Washington, D.C., and I have met some good teachers, and I
have met where they work to have good schools. That is true in any
city, and we can find bad schools in any city. But I want to tell my
colleagues, per capita, the schools in D.C. are worse. Sixty years old,
the average. They have not done a very good job of managing their own
city. Roofs that they had to close down the systems, and I get sick and
tired of saying we are going to take money away from public education
when we could have saved 35 percent for school construction out of
public education by waiving Davis-Bacon to repair and build schools,
but would they do it? No, because the unions did not want it. Thirty-
five percent saving of money, but they would not even do it. They would
not even vote to have the NEA pay its fair share of taxes in D.C. so
that that money would go to the school, because, quote, that was a
union.
But I want to tell my colleagues, they are behind the power curve. I
lived up by the train station. My car was broken into twice. Someone
died and was shot right outside the driveway. Two ladies were mugged
going into the area. A large portion of the students graduating from
D.C. are functionally illiterate, and that is not what we want. We want
to give them an opportunity.
Madam Speaker, the wealthy do have a choice. The President, the Vice
President, and guess what, the delegate to D.C. have their children in
private schools. Give the students that are trapped the same
opportunity.
____________________