[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.

                          ____________________