[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2651-H2660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STUDENT OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP ACT OF 1997

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the deputy chief whip.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it has been 3 years since a GAO 
report found that 1 out of every 3 of our Nation's schools are in need 
of major reconstruction and repair. Public school buildings are 
crumbling. Our schoolteachers are dealing with overcrowded classrooms. 
Many of our schools are fighting a war on drugs and violence.
  Parents and teachers in my own district tell me about these problems 
and the lack of resources in the public schools in Atlanta. The GAO 
report shows that these problems exist nationwide, because overcrowded 
students attend classes in closets, hallways and even bathrooms. Yet, 
in 3

[[Page H2652]]

years, the Republican leadership has done nothing to address these 
devastating problems.
  Nine out of 10 children in America attend public schools. The bill 
before us does nothing to address the problems that they face.
  In fact, this bill is nothing new. It is just the latest assault on 
public schools by the opponents of public education.

                              {time}  1230

  In the last three years, my Republican colleagues have proposed 
abolishing the Department of Education, cutting the school lunch 
program, cutting funding for safe and drug-free schools, for teacher 
training, and for Head Start. The Republican record is clear. It is 
anti-public education.
  And now they have the audacity to propose draining $45 million from 
the Federal Treasury to send just 3 percent of D.C. students to private 
and religious schools. The vast majority of students in D.C. public 
schools, 76,000, will be left out and left behind.
  Now, the Republicans will have us believe that they care about D.C. 
public schools and their students. Do not be fooled. Education is a 
great equalizer in our Nation. For $45 million, we could set up 
computer labs for every school in the District of Columbia. We could 
hire teachers, reading teachers for all of the public schools in the 
District. With adequate funding, with public education as our top 
priority, we could truly make a difference for the majority of our 
schoolchildren in this city and nationwide.
  Madam Speaker, the Democrats have a plan that will rebuild and repair 
50,000 of our Nation's schools, put 100,000 more teachers in our 
Nation's classrooms, reduce the class size to 18 students and 
strengthen teacher training.
  It is time for us to take action and move forward to improve American 
public schools. This legislation is a step backward. It is a step in 
the wrong direction. Oppose the Republican D.C. voucher scheme and 
invest in public education for all of our children, so no child will be 
left behind in the District of Columbia or any place in America.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, an ancient Greek philosopher once said that 
only the educated are truly free. To a remarkable extent, that is still 
true today. The state of our education system pounds that point home. 
In many of our communities our children get the best education in the 
world. They are free to become lawyers, doctors, astronauts, engineers 
or whatever they want. They are free to live the American dream.
  But in other communities, those communities that are not so well off, 
those communities that are ravaged by crime and drugs, the schools very 
often fail the children. They fail to give the children the necessary 
tools so they can realize their dreams. They fail to provide the 
children the safe and secure environment where they can learn. They 
fail to provide teachers who have the knowledge and the ability to 
teach. They fail to use their resources wisely to ensure that money is 
spent on teaching children, not on padding the wallets of bureaucrats.
  And as a result of these failures, the children in these communities 
are trapped. They are not free to live their dreams. They are trapped 
in a system that ensures mediocrity, that inspires despair, that 
instills failure.
  The District of Columbia has many examples of failure in its 
education system. It has amongst the highest illiteracy rates of any 
school system in the country. It spends more money per student than 
most schools. The question today is pretty simple: Do we take the steps 
that will instill accountability and responsibility and quality into 
the school system, or do we let the status quo continue unabated?
  Well, in my view we need to shake this system up, and I cannot think 
of a better way to do that than to establish scholarships for children 
who want to break out of a failing system. I have heard most of the 
opponents today; and a lot of opponents in Washington, D.C., including 
half the teachers in the school system, send their children to schools 
other than the government school system. I have heard many complaints 
from those people who oppose the proposal offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey) to establish this scholarship program. They say it 
means that we are abandoning the public school system. Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  If we wanted to abandon the public school system we would offer 
legislation that would give every student in the D.C. system a 
scholarship, every student a scholarship to the private or public 
school system somewhere else. And my guess is that that proposal would 
be a cheaper alternative than the current system and wildly popular 
with most of the residents in the District of Columbia.
  But the majority leader is offering his proposal to inspire a rebirth 
in the D.C. school system. There is nothing like a little competition 
to get a system to change for the better, and we know that in business 
and we know it in life.
  So some teachers' unions are fighting this proposal and other school 
choice proposals, and half of them send their kids to private schools, 
and they fight them with every ounce of energy that they can muster. 
Apparently the unions are scared of the concept of accountability and 
responsibility and quality.
  I know many teachers who are as frustrated with the current system as 
we are. They want the best for these students. But the bureaucrats and 
the union leaders want the best for the bureaucracy and the union and 
not for students. And what is best for the bureaucracy and for the 
union is often the worst for the student and the parents.
  Giving families the opportunity to choose where their children will 
attend school is an innovative way to inspire competition and improve 
our public school system. Many low-income families cannot afford to 
send their children to private school or even the means to take them to 
another public school in a better area.
  The D.C. Scholarship Opportunity Act would give a low-income family 
in the District a choice, a chance, the power to provide their children 
with a better education. The D.C. Scholarship Opportunity Act is an 
important way to begin to affect our communities, to show them that we 
in Washington are committed to improving the educational system.
  So, Madam Speaker, I applaud the majority leader for his commitment. 
Improving this system will help more children to realize the American 
dream.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this voucher bill because it 
will do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of educational 
opportunities available in the District of Columbia. What this bill 
will do, however, is create false hope in the minds of schoolchildren 
and their parents and allow the Republicans to trumpet a lot of their 
baseless partisan political themes.
  Let me say to my Republican colleagues and the District residents 
that federally funded school vouchers will not be made available here 
or anywhere else in America during the 105th Congress.
  Madam Speaker, this is the third time that Republicans have trotted 
out this misguided D.C. voucher proposal for consideration in the 
House. Twice before they unsuccessfully attempted to attach it to the 
D.C. Appropriations bill. Now, the proposal finally stands alone to be 
judged on its own. It has never gone through the committee process for 
deliberate consideration. If it had, it would not have seen the light 
of day.
  Just, last November, a bipartisan majority of this body soundly 
rejected legislation to offer federally funded vouchers nationwide. 
Why? Because Members recognized that vouchers simply channel taxpayer 
dollars to private and religious schools--something ridiculous to do 
when budget pressure makes it difficult to properly fund public 
schools. Members also recognized that the bill would erode protections 
afforded through our civil rights laws.

[[Page H2653]]

The voucher proposal before us today suffers from the very same fatal 
flaws. What's more, the D.C. voucher bill would be vetoed if it were 
sent to the President.
  Madam Speaker, we should not undermine the efforts of those local 
officials who are principally responsible for the education of District 
students by forcing upon them the failed and unconstitutional voucher 
experiment. Rather, what we should do is support the Norton substitute 
to provide the D.C. public schools with $7 million to implement 
comprehensive reforms and hire additional reading tutors. Both 
initiatives would target the lowest performing schools. This approach 
would ensure all D.C. students the promise of a quality education from 
what would soon become an exemplary public school system.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, it is with an abiding respect 
and great reluctance that I oppose the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton), my friend and colleague, but I support this 
legislation.
  I think a few things need to be said. First, this is not taking one 
cent from the public schools in the District of Columbia, which have 
the highest spending rate per pupil in the Washington region right now. 
And I will join the gentlewoman in making sure they have the money to 
continue to build a quality public school system.
  But we have tried through a presidentially appointed control board to 
make the system better, and it is clear it is more than a one-year 
ordeal. It is going to take several years. We recognize and we have to 
recognize the current failures of the public school system that the 
Washington Post this morning labeled ``troubled.''
  The dropout rate is the highest in the region. Test scores the lowest 
almost in the country. Opened four years in a row late. It is just not 
operating. It is so bad that no Member of Congress sends their kids 
through the District of Columbia public school system today. The 
President and the Vice President, offered those opportunities, did as 
most of us and declined and opted for private schools, and I do not 
blame them or fault them in any way because the school system today is 
not something that we could be proud of.
  Madam Speaker, I want to work to make it better. This is a 
scholarship. This bill allows not just the opportunity for some of the 
poorest of the poor to send their kids to private schools. It allows 
the option for dollars for tutoring and dollars for teacher training 
and the like.
  What has happened in this city over the last 20 years is that the 
middle class and the upper class have responded by sending their kids 
to private schools or moving out of the city where there are school 
systems that are delivering an educational quality. What we are trying 
to offer here is a scholarship opportunity for the poorest of the poor 
in the city to give their children the same opportunity that Members of 
Congress have to send their kids to quality schools.
  Opponents have said we are imposing this on the city. We are not 
imposing anything on the city. There is an article in the Washington 
Post today that talks about the Ted Forstmann scholarships for the 
city. Seven thousand poor families applied for this $1,700 grant, and 
they have to put up $500 of their own, when they could take a free 
public school system, and they are still overwhelmed with responses. I 
predict that we will get more responses to this program should this 
become law.
  One lady, Karen Leach, said ``I prayed every day. I just prayed every 
day,'' that she would be able to get the additional scholarships to 
send her kids where they could get a quality education. I think this 
bill will answer the prayers of a few thousand other parents in the 
city as well.
  As I said, it is not imposing vouchers. We are not imposing these 
scholarships on anybody. If parents do not want them, then they should 
not apply and should not take them. But please do not tell single 
mothers like Karen Leach that because they are poor, working poor, 
working two jobs in some cases to give their kids a better life, that 
they cannot have access to these educational scholarships just because 
their political leaders are afraid to admit that perhaps the school 
system is not working and is not functional in some cases, it has not 
opened on time for four years, and some of the other things we have 
discussed. It should not mean that the poor students cannot live and 
have the American dream like the rest of us.
  I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Let us fix 
the system. Let us give the public schools more dollars to do the job. 
We increased spending in the classroom last year. But even the 
presidentially appointed control board is not going to fix the schools 
overnight.
  For Christopher Leach, who is mentioned in the Post article today, 
which I will submit for the Record, and others who are going to be in 
the third grade next year, the schools they will be going to are not 
functional, are not at an acceptable level for any of us to send our 
kids. They will never have another chance at the third grade while we 
are busy fixing the system. Next year is it for them.
  What we are trying to offer a few thousand kids the opportunity to 
have a system with the educational quality that the rest of us enjoy. 
And while we all know their schools do not meet the standards we want 
for our kids, why would we relegate them and not give them the kind of 
choices the rest of us have? But because we are richer, because we can 
send our kids to private school or we can move to wealthy suburban 
areas where they have different school systems, we deny them the 
opportunities that we have.
  Madam Speaker, with the gap between rich and poor growing greater in 
America and in this region every day, we cannot afford to relegate 
these poor students to a dysfunctional school system. They deserve 
these opportunity scholarships. I support the legislation.
  Madam Speaker, the Washington Post article which I previously 
referred to follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 30, 1998]

                  1,001 D.C. Students Win Scholarships

                          (By Debbi Wilgoren)

       Hundreds of low-income District parents are receiving calls 
     and letters this week telling them that they have won 
     scholarships to help them take their children out of the 
     city's troubled public school system and enroll them in 
     private schools.
       They are the winners in a computerized lottery, held Monday 
     and Tuesday, that awarded privately funded scholarships of as 
     much as $1,700 each to 1,001 children to cover 30 to 60 
     percent of private school tuition. The money will go to about 
     750 families, who will receive separate scholarships for each 
     of their children.
       ``I prayed every day. I just prayed every day,'' said Karen 
     Leach, a single mother who works nights as a security guard 
     and won scholarships for her sons, Christopher, 8, and 
     Christian, 5. ``I just want my kids to have the best that I 
     can get for them.''
       Leach said she will use the money to put her children back 
     in Catholic school. Her older son attended Assumption School 
     in Southeast Washington from nursery school through second 
     grade, but he and his 5-year-old brother enrolled at Leckie 
     Elementary School in far Southwest last fall because Leach 
     could no longer afford tuition.
       The two children have done fairly well in public school 
     this year, but Leach said she believes they will get a better 
     education and more individualized attention in Catholic 
     school because classes will be smaller and the other children 
     will be better behaved.
       At Leckie, she said, ``some of the kids are just out of 
     control.''
       The number of scholarships, which are being provided by the 
     five-year-old Washington Scholarship Fund, has more than 
     doubled this year, thanks to the largess of Wall Street 
     tycoon Theodore J. Forstmann and John Walton, heir to the 
     Wal-Mart fortune. They donated a total of $6 million to the 
     effort last fall.
       At a news conference yesterday announcing the 1,001 
     winners--chosen from more than 7,500 low-income applicants--
     Forstmann said he intends to launch similar funds soon in as 
     many as 30 U.S. cities, including Los Angeles. That would 
     greatly expand a new type of philanthropy that already is 
     helping to pay the private school costs of 14,000 children 
     across the country.
       The effort coincides with growing national concern about 
     the quality of public education provided in mostly poor, 
     urban school districts. It comes as publicly funded, 
     privately operated charter schools are opening in the city 
     and many states, and as Republican leaders in Congress are 
     pushing for taxpayer-funded private school vouchers for poor 
     students in the District and elsewhere.
       The House is expected today to pass legislation, already 
     approved by the Senate, that would set up a D.C. voucher 
     program despite strong opposition from Education Secretary 
     Richard W. Riley, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), local 
     officials and parent groups.

[[Page H2654]]

       President Clinton, however, has promised to veto the bill, 
     and congressional leaders say they lack the two-thirds 
     majority needed to override his veto. Opponents of voucher 
     programs say the government should use its resources to 
     improve public schools. They also complain that such programs 
     unfairly favor parochial schools, where tuition is much lower 
     than at most secular private schools.
       Forstmann refused to take a position yesterday on the issue 
     of taxpayer-funded vouchers. But he dismissed suggestions 
     that he and other donors should give money to public schools, 
     saying many public school systems are so dysfunctional that 
     donating to them does not help children.
       ``It's a little like putting money into the former Soviet 
     Union,'' he said. ``If the system worked, we wouldn't have to 
     be here.''
       Forstmann said he believes public schools will work better 
     if they are forced to compete more directly with private 
     schools for students. He appealed to others to give money so 
     more poor children can choose between public and private 
     school.
       Yesterday, he met with Leach and a few other parents, then 
     telephoned several additional winners. Fund Executive 
     Director Douglas D. Dewey said all scholarship recipients 
     will be notified by telephone and mail this week. Those who 
     were not selected will receive letters by Monday or Tuesday.
       The organization originally planned to award 1,000 
     scholarships. But at the last minute, it decided to include 
     an applicant who was not selected in the lottery but whose 
     academic struggle--he has repeated third grade twice--was 
     featured in a Washington Times article Monday.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, correcting the record for the gentleman from Virginia, 
the District has the second lowest per pupil spending on students in 
the region. His district, Fairfax County, is $7,650. Mine is only 
$7,000 and Alexandria is $9,000.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, firstly, I am appalled at the disrespect 
that is being shown to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton). It is an unwritten rule in this body to allow the 
leadership of the district to go to that person who represents that 
district. Not only is she being disrespected, but after she gives us 
the facts and the figures, then we have Members on the other side get 
up and talk about she is wrong and give other facts and figures.
  I am appalled at what you are doing, and I do not think for one 
minute that you care more about this district than the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia. And let me say this, the gentlewoman is 
smarter than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), than the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and all the rest of them put together. How 
dare you question her ability to lead this District?
  Madam Speaker, everybody knows this has been a political ploy. Not 
only do we not believe you care more about these children than the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, we do not believe that, but 
do you expect to buy their education on the cheap?

                              {time}  1245

  We heard what education costs in all of these districts and the 
surrounding ones. But you want to come with a mere $3,200 a year for 3 
percent of the students and then say that the $7 million will not take 
away from the other students in the district. It is outrageous.
  I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey), those who believe in this so much, try it in 
your own district, try it in your own district.
  Even though I do not support this kind of thing, this kind of subsidy 
to private schools and to religious schools, if they want it so badly, 
I will support it for their districts.
  I would ask my Members, please do not run over the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Do not disrespect this district. 
Do not be bullies on this issue. We know that you are stepping on the 
District in every way that you can. They are down. It is difficult to 
fight. They do not have the power to stop you. You have the numbers. 
You can step on their backs. You can step on their necks.
  I would ask you to have a little decency. Give the right of 
representation to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton). Follow her lead and discontinue this madness.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from California 
will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. RIGGS. Madam Speaker, is referring to Members of Congress as 
bullies and imputing the intellect of Members of Congress in order with 
House procedures and rules?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members should refrain from engaging in 
personalities during debate.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, if I might just take a moment, since my intellect, my 
motives, and my character have just been called into question, let me 
just make the observation that I made at the outset, Madam Speaker. 
This is not about me, and, in all due respect, it is not about the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. It is about the children.
  Quite frankly, we have 8,000 of those children and their parents that 
have said this is a good deal. We want it. You can read about them in 
today's paper.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Madam Speaker, I and all other moms know what it is 
like to worry every day about how your child is doing in school. It is 
terrible if your child is trapped in a school that is unsafe and 
unworkable. Your daughter's sleepless nights become your own sleepless 
nights.
  Most parents with children in the D.C. public schools live under 
these intolerable conditions. D.C. schools have received national 
attention. In spite of funding per student that ranks among one of the 
highest in the Nation, education in the District has reached crisis 
proportions.
  Decrepit school buildings are literally falling apart. The local news 
here is filled with stories of fire code violations, violence in 
schools, and failing test scores.
  The problem in the D.C. public schools right now is the entire system 
is broken. It is not just a bad teacher or disorganized principal or a 
leaky roof or an unrestrained bully in the fourth grade. It is all of 
these problems and more. A parent cannot just change their child's 
teacher or their class or their school. There is no place to escape, 
and so the children are simply trapped.
  Hopefully, the District will begin the long process of improvement. 
In the meantime, the children in these schools cannot wait. Too many 
lives have already been ruined. A child only gets to be in first grade 
once. He or she only gets to be a child one time. We need to make sure 
that each child has at least a chance to spend that year, that 
childhood in a safe school with an opportunity to learn.
  School choice will offer parents the opportunity to give their 
children a chance to learn, thus enabling them to lay the foundation 
for future success. The key to ending the cycle of public assistance 
dependence is in opening doors for children to receive a quality 
education.
  School choice is popular in this community. A recent poll found that 
low-income parents support scholarships. Among families earning less 
than $25,000, 59 percent support the program. We should, too.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Madam Speaker, while there are a lot of good reasons to 
be skeptical about the bill before us, I think that the most important 
is sometimes glossed over, and that is the need for a full and 
effective evaluation of the program.
  Evaluation is critical if we are to avoid monumental failure. 
Parental satisfaction and other subjective measures are important but 
wholly insufficient to measure the efficacy of this kind of funding 
scheme and its educational consequences.
  A bill that is serious about a voucher experiment I believe should 
include statutory requirements for:
  The random sampling of the students who are measured in the course of 
their experience with this;
  Baseline data to benchmark evaluation including parental data, their

[[Page H2655]]

prior school experiences, relevant educational values, and reasons for 
making or not making a choice; student data on prior achievement, 
behavior, and special needs;
  Appropriate control groups, including sibling nonparticipants;
  Data from within and across all sites;
  Comparable testing across all sites;
  Data on transportation problems and solutions such as we experience 
in Ohio; and
  Effects on all students, beyond standardized testing, including 
changing patterns of school enrollment by school type and demographic 
characteristics; the enhancement of geographic mobility among students; 
how school choices expand or contract; the kind of students who are 
accepted and rejected and retained by ``choice schools''; and effects 
on racial and class integration.
  In section 11 of the bill, there is an evaluation component that 
comes close to addressing some of these requirements but hardly even a 
majority of them. However, the evaluation component's very language 
assumes the success of the program. This is a large and costly 
experiment in the lives of real children, both the ones in the program 
and those who are not. We owe it to them to include a serious effort to 
measure the costs and benefits and measurable change in student 
performance.
  Whether or not the politicians on this floor or across this country 
agree about vouchers, no one can say we know for sure how well they 
will work. The students cannot afford for us to proceed without a 
mechanism for knowing if we are wrong.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining for each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has 39 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) has 33 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I will not take issue with my 
colleague from California. I do not want to speak for the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey), but there is no question in my mind that I am 
not as smart as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton). I would never try to compete with the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia on any kind of an intellectual or even a 
rhetorical basis.
  I am going to, though, plead with my colleagues on the Democratic 
side, where the opposition to this bill lies, to set aside the suspect 
political motivation behind this bill and to put aside all that kind of 
lofty ideological rhetoric that partisanship can inspire. I do not 
necessarily disagree with all that rhetoric in principle. But I am 
going to ask you to strip away the esoteric and political issues that 
normally accompany this issue and look at the essence of what this bill 
does. Because all it is is an additional $7 million that can only go to 
poor families, only poor families. If it is not spent, it will not go 
to DC, nor to any other educational effort of merit. It will be lost. A 
lost opportunity.
  What does it do that is so threatening? It lets parents pick where 
their kids will go to school. Those parents can choose the school my 
children go to, only a couple of miles away from the District of 
Columbia. It is in an almost entirely minority neighborhood, a public 
elementary school, with an African American principal, and an African 
American administration. Almost the entire student body is minority. 
But it is safe. The children that go to this school get the basic 
education they need, and they are going to get to go to college if they 
have the will and make the effort. It is a credit to the public school 
system as so many thousands of schools in this Nation are a credit to 
our investment in public education.
  I am also going to ask you to let me make this a little more 
personal. A few months ago, my daughter broke out crying at the dinner 
table. She said, ``Mommy, Daddy, I cannot keep up with the other kids 
in my class. I cannot think as fast as them. I am the worst in the 
class.''
  We comforted her and explained to her, ``Honey, the radiation that 
killed the cancer cells in your brain also killed the brain cells, but 
we are going to send you to a tutor,'' which we do, ``and we are going 
to make sure you can keep up.'' Expensive? Very. All out-of-pocket. 
Worth it? Of course.
  But what about the dozens of other kids in the same condition at D.C. 
Children's Hospital, almost all of them minority, low-income families? 
Why should they be doomed because of the accident of their birth? Their 
parents do not have any possibility of enabling their kids to keep 
pace, of realizing their potential, of ever going to college. This bill 
gives them a faint, dim glimmer of hope because it can be used for 
tutoring that they could not otherwise afford.
  Madam Speaker 85 percent of the children in Ward 3, the wealthiest 
ward in this city, have a choice of schools, and they choose to send 
their kids to private schools. Why should the parents in other wards of 
the city not have the same choice? Why should their kids suffer so 
because of the accident of their birth?
  We spend more on D.C. public schools and get less out of them than 
any other school state system in the country. Three-fourths of their 
8th grade students flunk basic math. Forty percent drop out. A minority 
of high school graduates are able to qualify for a college education. 
On average they're at least 2 years behind their peers in other school 
systems.
  Why should we condemn all of these children to continue to suffer 
such inequity because we want to uphold our lofty principles and our 
traditional politics? Of course we believe in public schools. But we 
also believe in the intrinsic worth of every one of those children born 
in the District of Columbia. They have the same right anyone else has.
  Why are you denying that right to even 2,000 children who could break 
out of the bonds of a failed school system? Because you want to 
maintain the status quo? Because you do not want to admit that the 
current failed condition is the reality of this failed school system? 
It is not fair to deny hope to even 2,000 children. What is fair is to 
support this bill.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I invite the gentleman to exercise some of 
that passion for vouchers for the children of Alexandria.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, last year, within our balanced budget 
bill, Congress gave American families a $400 tax credit for every child 
under the age of 17 in the household. This year, it will be $500 per 
child. American families can use all of those monies for private or 
religious school tuition. That is their choice.
  This year, some in Congress want to bust the Nation's first balanced 
budget in 30 years by subsidizing private and religious school 
education, a subsidy that would ultimately affect funds available for 
the public schools.
  If this voucher bill passes, the other real consequence would be 
higher property taxes for America's families to make up the difference. 
In New Jersey, our property taxes are already too high.
  Besides, what is next? If someone does not like the books in their 
public library, should the government give that person a money voucher 
to buy books so that they can start their own private library? If 
somebody does not like the people who go into the public parks, should 
the government give money vouchers to that person so they can buy their 
own swing set and build their own private park? I do not think so.
  America is still a country that believes in the common good and to 
achieve the opportunity for success and the opportunity to achieve the 
American dream.
  Let us fix our public schools. Let us encourage competition by 
supporting chartered public school, but let us not pillage the public 
school systems in America. Hurting public schools in America will not 
be good for America.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce, and, in my estimation, this 
government's number one expert on the subject of education by virtue of 
understanding and concern.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.

[[Page H2656]]

  Madam Speaker, what I really want to talk about right now is, I get 
fed up when I hear the other side keep talking about pupil/teacher 
ratio, keep talking about building buildings, repairing building. For 
20 years, 20 years, they had an opportunity to send 40 percent of the 
excess cost for special education to that school district and to every 
school district. They sent 6. If they would send 20, 40 percent, if 
they would send 40 percent of excess cost to special education to 
Washington, D.C., do they know what they would send them? Another $12 
million.
  Put your money where your mandate was. You mandated 100 percent 
special ed. You do not send them the 40 percent. You were sending them 
6 percent. We got it up to 9. That is a long, long way away.
  If they had an additional $11 million because you put your money 
where your mouth was for 20 years when you mandated special ed, they 
would have all the money in the world they need to deal with pupil/
teacher ratio, to improve the school buildings, to build new school 
buildings.
  So do not come here now 20 years later and somehow blame it on 
somebody else. It was you that passed the 100 percent mandate, and it 
was you that did not fund it. Now put your money where your mouth is.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen), a member of the Subcommittee of the District of 
Columbia of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us 
today because I believe that vouchers are the wrong way to improve our 
public schools.
  Taxpayer dollars should be spent to improve our public schools for 
all children, not on a $45 million unproven program that will reach 
only a small minority of D.C. students. This bill will cost over $7 
million a year, and I believe that money could be used to help all of 
the 78,000 students in the District's public schools, rather than the 
2,000 or so who may benefit from vouchers.
  I believe that what we are seeing here is an effort to try out in the 
District of Columbia an idea that Members would like to bring and would 
be more appropriately dealt with around the country in other States.
  I serve as a member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight's Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and our 
subcommittee has held hearings on the state of the District's public 
schools. They are hurting. Serious action is essential to give the 
students of the District the education they want and deserve.
  The District is moving ahead with an academic plan to improve student 
achievement, develop qualified teachers and strengthen its 
infrastructure.
  One example is the District's new summer STARS, Students and Teachers 
Achieving Results and Success, program. STARS is intended to end social 
promotion and give students an intensive, highly-structured opportunity 
to gain important math and reading skills. It shows how committed the 
District is to improving student achievement.
  Our goal is to improve the District's public schools for all 
children, not to weaken them for the benefit of a chosen few; and 
despite all of the emotion and argument around this issue, I believe 
this is the right course. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
bill.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce that deals with elementary and secondary education.
  Mr. RIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 
this time and for his leadership on this very important issue.
  It occurs to me, as I have listened to the debate for the better part 
of this hour, that this has, unfortunately, become one of those ``he 
said, she said'' debates, where we talk right by one another with only 
an occasional ad hominem attack by one Member against other Members to 
liven things up.
  But I was very moved by what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 
had to say, and I do not think anybody can question that gentleman's 
commitment to the District of Columbia. I wish I would have heard a 
better response to his concerns from the delegate for the District of 
Columbia than to simply say, try parental choice in the City of 
Alexandria public schools.
  It so happens that the City of Alexandria, Virginia, public school 
system is top-notch. But, by comparison, the District of Columbia 
public schools are in crisis, a crisis of catastrophic proportions. So 
why do those people on this side of the aisle, with the exception of 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and maybe a handful of other 
Democratic Members of the House, continue to stand in the way of school 
choice? Why?
  We need it in the District of Columbia. It is the last best hope for 
many District of Columbia families.
  And I am struck. I saw a poll conducted by the Joint Center of 
Political and Economic Studies last year that found that 57 percent of 
African Americans support giving parents vouchers which they can use to 
pick the best schools, the best and most appropriate education for 
their children, and that number soars to 80 percent, 80 percent, 
colleagues, for black parents with younger children.
  So we have to choose. Where are we going to stand? Are we going to 
stand with our fellow Americans, our constituents who are demanding 
parental choice in education?
  It reminds me of the saying, ``When the people leave, perhaps the 
leaders will follow.'' Or are we going to remain absolutely beholden to 
the teachers' unions, a special-interest lobby that happens to be the 
core constituency of the national Democratic Party.
  Show some political courage. The time and place is here and now in 
the District of Columbia.
  This is a very modest bill, a very modest bill. It does not go nearly 
far enough, in my opinion, because it would only give a small number of 
parents versus the number of parents who have applied for these tuition 
scholarships, a small number of parents a scholarship up to $3,200 so 
that their children may attend the public, private or parochial school 
of their choice. That means the decision rests not with the government, 
not with the public school system but with the parent. And who better 
to make that decision?
  We heard a lot of misinformation about this bill. The facts are very 
straightforward. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) spoke to some 
of the concerns. Will the scholarship bill drain the D.C. public school 
resources that the school system desperately needs? No. Not one dime of 
this money, not one dime of the money for scholarships, would come from 
the District of Columbia school budget.
  Is $3,200 not too little to cover tuition costs at private or 
parochial schools? Answer: emphatically no.
  We had hearings in my subcommittee. We heard that at least 60 private 
schools inside the Beltway cost less than $3,200 per student, and more 
than two dozen others cost less than $4,000. These include religious 
and private schools and 14 schools in southeast, the quadrant of the 
District where the District's poorest families live.
  Is the scholarship program not a violation of home rule? No. Because, 
as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) said, the scholarships are 
not imposed on anyone, and no one is forced to participate. These 
schools already, the private schools, already accept minorities and 
children with disabilities, and this legislation is not 
unconstitutional. It is not a violation of the separation between 
church and State, because, as with the GI bill and early childhood 
educations and day care assistance, the recipient, that is the parent, 
makes the choice, not the government.
  It is time to give those children a chance by giving those parents a 
choice.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to clarify that my response to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 
was based on the fact his district spends $2,000 more per pupil than 
mine; that his minority children are low achieving; and that no Member 
should try to put on my district what he has not already put on his 
own.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.

[[Page H2657]]

Scott), who is a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
as well a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 1502, the 
D.C. voucher bill.
  Madam Speaker, there are a number of reasons to vote against the 
bill, and let me just focus on two.
  First, the bill ignores 97 percent of the students and offers just a 
jackpot for the privileged few. But there are not enough seats 
available in private schools in the Washington, D.C., area to 
accommodate those privileged few who might win the lottery.
  A recent Washington Post article looked into the number of available 
seats and found that, ``D.C. students would find the costs high and the 
openings scarce.''
  Furthermore, Madam Speaker, we must remember that the bill, should it 
pass, would be subject to an immediate court challenge over the use of 
taxpayer funds to go to private religious schools. Private religious 
schools make up 80 percent of the private schools in the Washington, 
D.C., area. So of those seats purported to be available by the 
proponents of the legislation, at least 80 percent of them may well not 
be available because of court challenges that would prevent their 
participation in the voucher program.
  Madam Speaker, perhaps the most disturbing part of the bill is the 
provision which guts civil rights protections for the students. 
Although through legislative trickery the bill declares that the 
vouchers are not Federal aid to the school, such declaration has no 
purpose other than to exempt the schools from Federal enforcement of 
civil rights. Tragically, the bill clearly allows for discrimination 
against the disabled.
  So while this legislation is framed as an educational bill to help 
disadvantaged D.C. students, in reality it is a flagrant assault by the 
majority on civil rights laws.
  Madam Speaker, although this bill will provide no assistance to 97 
percent of the students in Washington, D.C., a $7 million federally 
funded education program ought to at least have full Federal civil 
rights protections for the privileged few it purports to help. The fact 
that that protection is not contained in the bill is another reason to 
vote ``no''.
  Madam Speaker, we need to vote ``no'' and defeat the bill.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to set the record straight.
  Section 7 of the bill specifically prohibits discrimination. It 
reads, ``An eligible institution participating in the scholarship 
program under this subtitle shall not engage in any practice that 
discriminates on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex.''
  It also specifically states in section 8 that nothing in the bill 
shall affect the rights of students or the obligations of the District 
of Columbia public schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. 
Nothing in the bill waives any current Federal, State or local statute 
protecting civil rights. In fact, private and religious schools in the 
District are already subject to D.C. civil rights law, among the most 
expansive in the country.
  I am sure, Madam Speaker, that I will not have to address fallacy 
number seven in the book of complaints again.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. 
Probably none of my colleagues here send their kids to the District of 
Columbia schools. None of my colleagues here have probably ever taught 
in the District of Columbia schools.
  My daughter, for 5 years, worked at 14th and Belmont, in the 
community of Hope, up there where most of the kids are not getting a 
decent education. She then taught in the District of Columbia schools 
for a year.
  We are talking about real people's lives. I commend the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for what he said. I know of a young boy who 
left the District of Columbia schools where he was failing and then 
went out to the Fairfax County schools and is now getting Bs.
  My colleagues say, stay with the schools. None of my colleagues would 
allow their children to go to the District of Columbia schools. My 
colleagues would take two jobs, three jobs, they would do anything they 
could to get their kids into another school, and now they want to deny 
the opportunity for parents to have that opportunity.
  If I lived in the District of Columbia, I would be a revolutionary 
because of the way these schools are. The Armey proposal for 
scholarships is good. It is going to help real people to make a real 
difference, and I urge all the Members, all the Members to vote for 
this bill. Because, when it passes, and, hopefully, it will be signed, 
it will save lives because it will give a young man and a young woman 
the opportunity to go on and do things that all of us, everybody in 
this body, wants for their own children.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to the comments of the 
majority leader.
  The fact that it is designated as not aid to the school eliminates 
the Federal enforcement, and there are a lot of things that can be done 
under Federal enforcement that are exempt because of that language.
  I had an amendment in the Committee on Rules that was denied to allow 
that language to come out so that we could have full participation and 
full enforcement of civil rights. That is not in the bill because of 
that language.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I say to all my 
colleagues that public education is the backbone of our country. Let us 
not forget that. It is why we are a great Nation. Public education is 
available to all. It does not discriminate, and it must be 
strengthened, not weakened. Yet this bill before us today will do just 
that. It profoundly harms our public schools.
  This bill makes it easier for a chosen few, and the word is few, to 
go to private schools, schools that self-select their student body, 
schools that have no responsibility to special education and no concern 
for students with unique educational needs.

                              {time}  1315

  This is not acceptable. I am proud to speak for public education in 
America. Sure, it is not perfect, but the solution to any problems of 
our public school system will not be solved by providing vouchers to a 
few chosen children. The solution is to fix our public schools so that 
all families would choose public education unless they choose to go to 
a religious school that they would pay the tuition from their family.
  S. 1502 hurts our kids, hurts our schools and our country, and it 
must be defeated.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer).
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Madam Speaker, the Constitution of the 
United States in article 1, section 8, gives Congress the authority to 
exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such 
district as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of 
Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States.
  And there are other sections in the Constitution as well that give 
the Congress the authority and, in fact, the obligation to be concerned 
about the children of the District of Columbia public schools.
  But it is more than just a constitutional authority. We have a moral 
obligation to treat these children like real Americans. It is 
interesting when we read the newspapers here in Washington about how 
voucher opponents send their own children to private schools. Now, 
these are people over here who understand the difference between 
bondage and liberty.
  John Milton, British poet, in the poem Samson Agonistes, said, ``But 
what more often nations grown corrupt than to love bondage more than 
liberty, bondage with ease than strenuous liberty.''
  Some people understand the difference between bondage and liberty

[[Page H2658]]

and send their children to the schools of their choice. Let us treat 
children in the District of Columbia like real Americans as well, so 
they might one day learn the difference between bondage and liberty.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This Member reminds the Member that I represent people who ask that 
they be treated like real Americans, that their home rule and self-
government be respected, and that the vote which this Member won on the 
House floor, as a real American, not be taken from my taxpaying 
residents.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  My colleagues, there are several important educational initiatives 
before this Congress that would benefit millions of students across our 
Nation, not just the chosen few. There is the President's proposal to 
help schools hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size in the 
lower grades. There is also the President's school modernization and 
repair initiative. I introduced one version last year, the Rebuild 
America's Schools Act, that has attracted nearly 120 cosponsors. And a 
new proposal introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), 
myself, and others would offer tax credits to help local schools 
eliminate overcrowding, finance roof and window repair, and invest in 
computers and technology. These measures have the support of the 
American people. But are they being considered by the House? No.
  Madam Speaker, Democrats believe the Government should work to 
strengthen public schools, not undermine them. Unfortunately, that is 
exactly what this proposal is designed to do. Of course, there are 
problems, serious problems, with the schools in this district and other 
districts. One problem that I find particularly serious with this 
proposal is funding religious schools. I believe in government-church 
separation, and providing public vouchers for religious school costs 
would clearly violate this important constitutional principle.
  A potential lack of accountability to the taxpayer is another 
problem.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us authorizes enough money next year 
to provide vouchers to roughly 7 percent of D.C. children. What about 
the rest? What message does this educational sweepstakes send to our 
youth? It says, ``Your future is based on the luck of the draw, not 
your effort and ambition, and not equal opportunity for all.''
  Madam Speaker, D.C. public schools are in trouble. We need to invest 
in them. The Republicans want to tear them down brick by brick. The 
answer is not a limited voucher program that will weaken our public 
schools. It is tougher academic standards, safer school buildings, 
smaller classes, more teacher training. We have to invest in our public 
schools and make sure that every youngster has the opportunity to get 
an outstanding education.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the majority leader for 
his efforts in this and leading the way to give opportunity to those 
who may not have it.
  As I have, basically, understood much of the debate today, I am sure 
there were some survivors on the Titanic who were glad that the 
minority Members were not making the decisions on whether to use the 
lifeboats, because the decision would have been, since everybody cannot 
be in the lifeboat, nobody should be in the lifeboat.
  I am glad that the Members of the minority party who have spoken out 
here are not in charge of IDEA, because apparently the rule would be if 
we cannot fully fund IDEA, nobody should get the money.
  The question here is should those who are reaching out get some 
opportunity. But the underlying fundamental question here, and I want 
to make it clear on the Record here, because I have taken some 
criticism because I supported the High Hopes initiative in the 
committee, because I think we need to reach out in multiple ways, in 
public schools, in private schools, in charter schools, every way 
possible to increase the opportunities for all minorities, whether they 
be Hispanic, African American, Asian, rural white. We need to make sure 
that everybody has the opportunity to succeed in America.
  One of the things that this bill does is it empowers parents and 
children to vote with their feet. We keep hearing the word ``lottery'' 
like it is some kind of a gambling thing when, in fact, it is not. 
Maybe only 2,000 will get in, but many more will want to get in. Those 
who do not get in will still have the incentive to push in their 
schools, because their schools, in order to keep them from applying, 
presumably will start to listen to parents, presumably will start to 
respond.
  In fact, if what the people want, because they are clearly spending 
more dollars in the public schools than they are in these private 
schools, if what the people want is discipline, if what the people want 
is better basic education, if what the people want is to get the things 
that they are getting out of the private schools, the public schools 
where they have choice start to respond.
  We have an excellent public school in Southeast Washington and 
Anacostia, the Thomas Jefferson School, that does not have the crime 
problems, where they have more excellence going on. And we need to 
encourage those public schools that are reaching out and doing that; 
and one way to do that is to give the parents the ability to say, ``If 
you do not respond to us, if you do not listen to us, we will vote with 
our feet.'' And that is what we are doing here is empowering the poor 
like the rich are.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to put this civil rights issue that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) raised to rest by asking unanimous consent that 
the response of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the 
coalition of the Nation's civil rights organizations, be admitted into 
the Record. The Leadership Conference opposes the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Emerson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this bill, for three reasons. First of all, it is undemocratic in that 
it ignores the will of the people of the District of Columbia. They 
have already spoken and overwhelmingly rejected vouchers in a recent 
referendum.
  Secondly, I oppose it because it is simply another attempt to 
dismantle public education in America. Public education has been the 
cornerstone of democracy and must remain so. This bill would divert $7 
million from private schools to public schools to help only a few 
students. And we are not even sure that vouchers will improve 
achievements anyway. Evidence suggests that it need not necessarily do 
so.
  Finally, I oppose this bill because we should focus on putting our 
resources where they are really needed. We should use the money to fix 
up the crumbling schools, wire schools for the Internet, provide 
textbooks and other learning aids for students to learn.
  So I urge my colleagues, let us not do the political thing, let us do 
the real thing, let us do the meaningful thing, let us support public 
education and vote this bill down.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
D.C. Opportunities Scholarship Act.
  We have a moral responsibility to put children first in education, 
including inner-city children in D.C. All children should have the 
opportunity to attend school where they are safe, in a classroom where 
their teacher is qualified, and where their parents are involved in 
their education.
  According to a Washington Post article I recently read, about 40 
percent of second- and third-graders tested in D.C. public schools last 
spring read too poorly to meet the new proposed standard for promotion 
to the next grade.

[[Page H2659]]

 This would mean about 5,000 of Washington's 13,000 second- and third-
graders might have to repeat their grade for some reason. Five thousand 
Washington D.C. kids are simply not being taught basic reading skills. 
I wonder how many of these students will slip through the cracks and 
graduate in high schools without ever being able to read a newspaper.
  Right now, many of their parents are helpless to take action and 
provide a good education for their children. Let us give them a choice 
to respond to the educational needs of their children. Let us support 
this D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Act.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) has 22 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey) has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia for yielding and also for her inspired leadership on this 
issue.
  Last night we began debating a higher education bill that will 
significantly help students who go on to get a postsecondary education. 
As I stand here today, I think, what good is that bill, what good is 
this bill if we cannot even give an elementary or a secondary education 
to a kid? What good is legislation for postsecondary education if we 
sabotage the public school system in this country and if we undermine 
the future of millions of kids in this country?
  And this legislation is just the first step. Public schools in 
Washington and all over the United States face very real and serious 
problems. But we do not solve them by funneling money away from them. 
If we begin instituting voucher systems, we might as well just say, let 
us walk away from our public schools. And none of us are ready to do 
that.
  Let us talk about this lifeboat analogy we heard about. Imagine there 
is a ship that is about to sink. We know the ship is going down. We 
have the chance to do something about it. The Republican response is, 
let us make sure that we have lifeboats for 3 percent of the passengers 
on the ship. The rest of the passengers, let us hope they can swim.
  What we need to do to effectively address the problems that our 
public schools face is to fix our crumbling inner-city schools, reduce 
our classroom size, train qualified teachers, modernize our classroom, 
and connect our kids to the Internet. Let us look at competition, but 
within the public schools.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am a product of the public 
school system. I went to primary and secondary, as well as college and 
medical school, through public schools. Indeed, my mother was a public 
school teacher. But yet, I support this bill, and I think this bill is 
a very good bill. And, frankly, I am appalled at the kind of language 
that people are using to describe this concept.
  I mean, this is a very, very limited, small scholarship program; and 
to use this kind of language that I think incites fear in people, 
frankly, I just do not understand it.
  We have a very serious problem in the D.C. public school system. 
Sixty-five percent of D.C. public schoolchildren test below their grade 
level, this despite spending about $7,500 per student.
  The Washington Post, not exactly a Republican newspaper, reported 
that 85 percent of the D.C. public school graduates who enter a 
university need remedial education. Forty percent of the high school 
students either drop out or they shift over to a private school.
  Now let me tell my colleagues something: Rich people have school 
choice in the city of Washington. Indeed, the President, the Vice 
President, how many Members of this body send their children to the 
D.C. public schools? We are talking about giving a limited number of 
students a scholarship and to see how well it goes over, to see if the 
families like it, to see if the children like it. And they use this 
language like we want to destroy public education all across America.

                              {time}  1330

  In my opinion it is an outrage to use these kind of terms to describe 
a simple, very limited scholarship program. I think what you fear most 
is that this is going to be a success and the parents in the Washington 
D.C. area will ask for more of it. That is what you really fear.
  In my opinion, this piece of legislation is something that everybody 
should support, particularly those who are really interested in 
education. Let us put the issue to rest. If this is such a bad idea, 
will we not find out with this scholarship program? You will be able to 
stand up and say, ``I told you so.''
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today as a parent of 
two children who have gone through an urban public school, a good 
public school in Lansing, Michigan, who I am very proud of. We have had 
our challenges. Contrary to what this bill suggests, we have rolled up 
our sleeves and this year alone we have been able to recruit 1,100 new 
volunteers to work one-on-one with our students. We have through NetDay 
been able to bring together business and labor to wire 29 schools 
without taxpayers' expense, to be able to improve opportunity for 
technology and the Internet for every child in the Lansing public 
schools.
  What this bill does, it talks about a legitimate concern for children 
in Washington, D.C. and proposes exactly the wrong solution. It 
proposes taking $7 million out of a precious budget where there is not 
enough money and saying that 2,000 children will have the opportunity 
for a voucher, 76,000 children will be left with a system that does not 
have the investments it needs. Those 76,000 children could have in fact 
65 schools wired for the Internet, 460,000 new textbooks in those 
schools, if instead of this bill we would in fact invest that $7 
million to affect every child in Washington, D.C.
  Last fall literally the roofs were falling in on D.C. children. The 
response of the other side was to say 2,000 of the children could go to 
a different school and leave 76,000 children I suppose with buckets to 
catch the water. Our response is fix the schools, modernize them, 
improve them, and invest in every single American child in this 
country.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of this 
legislation. I think it is a wonderful opportunity to truly serve those 
who are most needy, the young in this country.
  I am reminded of a student in Indianapolis, Alphonso Harrell, whom I 
met. He was from a disadvantaged family and trapped in a public school 
that was not serving him, he was not doing well, and on his way to 
possibly a career of crime and terrible life. He had the advantage of a 
privately funded scholarship that allowed him to go to a local high 
school run by the Catholic religion. Alphonso has turned around. He now 
is a very good student, on the student government, captain of the 
football team and on his way to college, because of that opportunity.
  This legislation makes those opportunities available for the least 
advantaged here in the District of Columbia. I applaud it 
wholeheartedly.
  Unfortunately, many of the outside groups who are opposing this 
legislation are special interests who want to see the monopoly of the 
public school system maintained in the District of Columbia even when 
it does not serve the students. I rise in full support of this 
legislation and urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  I strongly support this bill.
  The fact is scholarship programs like this literally change lives of 
nation's youth. I was moved by the story of young Alphonso Harrell of 
Indianapolis, Indiana.
  Alphonso has turned his life around dramatically since enrolling at 
Cathedral High School. Beforehand, he was underachieving in public 
school, and could easily have ended up in jail or worse.
  However, a privately funded scholarship program changed all that. 
Alphonso had a chance to escape a terrible school

[[Page H2660]]

  Now, Alphonso is an honor student, captain of the football team, on 
student govt, and will be attending college soon.
  Opponents of D.C. Scholarships represent a narrow, selfish special 
interest who want to keep the monopoly of failed public school systems. 
They would have you believe that Private Schools are not a viable 
option for the poor and downtrodden of the District of Columbia.
  While many of the opponents, themselves, send their children to 
private and parochial bastions of privilege, they would deny even the 
most modestly priced private education to the children of hard working 
residents of the District.
  Mr. President and my fellow Members, I beseech you to set these 
children free. Set them free of the uncaring bureaucrats and special 
interests who rule their lives.
  Why should families of limited means be reduced to the edges of 
financial ruin in order to provide their children with a $2500 private 
school education, when at the same time the District of Columbia is 
spending an average of $9000 per student annually and providing, as far 
as the parents are concerned, virtually nothing in return?
  It is heartless for opponents of this bill to rob the children of the 
District of Columbia of a good education.
  Parents know best what is good for their children, and deserve the 
right to choose where to educate their children.
  My fellow members of the House, I urge you to vote with parents and 
vote in favor of the D.C. Scholarship Bill.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
Student Opportunity Scholarship Act, another voucher proposal. Vouchers 
are not the answer to the many problems that confront our schools. It 
is seen as a panacea but it is a scapegoat to our existing situation. 
Yes, it might help some of the youngsters that are out there and it 
might be beneficial, but it is going to be at the expense of all the 
other youngsters that are out there. In fact, the vouchers take away 
tax dollars from public schools where our children have the greatest 
need.
  If we are going to commit to helping, we ought to be out there 
providing the resources that are needed. At this present time there is 
a press conference out there because there are being cuts right now at 
teacher training, there are some cuts that are being put out in terms 
of not allowing sufficient resources to be able to build our 
classrooms. There are also some proposed cuts that would not allow for 
construction of schools. There are some cuts that will also have some 
direct impact in terms of wiring our classrooms. We should be adding 
additional resources instead of taking existing resources from the 
youngsters that are now out there, instead of coming up with this 
program that is only going to be responsible for only impacting a few 
at the expense of all the rest.
  Let us not be fooled into believing that this bill is for the benefit 
of our students and for our parents. In fact, most parents will not 
have a say-so in terms of who will be able to get in there. In fact, 
one of the difficulties about the voucher system is that it does not 
allow the opportunity for youngsters to participate. If you have any 
type of difficulties, any kind of handicap, those youngsters will not 
be included. So yes, it is very exclusive. It is only for those 
individuals that will be able to get in there, again at the expense of 
all the others.
  Public policy should respect the parental choice but the choice of 
benefit of all the students, not at the expense of the rest. Let us not 
abandon our public schools. I would ask and look at what has happened. 
There is a direct correlation between the proposals and the individuals 
supporting this proposal and the lack of commitment to fund our 
particular classrooms out there, lack of commitment to support public 
education as a whole. That is where it is needed.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I should just like to observe that it is 
generally advisable when one speaks of a direct correlation to offer 
empirical data rather than bias and opinion.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding time. As the previous Member may have talked about, there is a 
direct correlation that when you send money to Washington, it does not 
make it back to the child and it does not make it back to the 
classroom. This current system gobbles up money and it hurts kids and 
it hurts our public schools and it hurts our children. We have taken a 
look at it: 760 programs, 39 agencies, $100 billion. It does not work. 
You send a dollar to Washington for education, maybe 60 to 70 cents 
actually makes it back to a child in a classroom. Yes, we do not 
support that kind of a system.
  We have gone to 17 States, we have taken a look at what works in 
education. We have gone to lots of great schools. When you empower 
parents, when you focus on basic academics, when you get dollars back 
into the classroom, it works. We are not in the process or the need to 
focus on a particular system. We need to start taking a look at the 
kids.
  We have been in Cleveland, we have been in Milwaukee, we have been in 
all the places where education is progressing and where change is 
taking place. And every place where education is improving, it is 
moving power to parents and it is moving it to the local level and not 
moving more of it back to Washington.
  This is not the answer to all of the problems we face in education, 
but it is definitely a step in the right direction. It is a step that 
we ought to take. And it is a step we ought to take here in Washington, 
D.C. because it is not an issue of money. We spend roughly $10,000 per 
child in Washington and we get some of the lowest results of any public 
school in the country. It is not fair to those kids.
  Another few million dollars to improve these schools is not going to 
make the difference. We need radical change. We need to help the 7,573 
students who tried to apply to get these scholarships who are not going 
to have that opportunity.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia for yielding me this time to speak in opposition to this 
bill. Let me quote some of my colleagues from the other side.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) said that rhetoric and the 
destroying of public education is not the intent. I sat on this floor 
and heard one of my colleagues a few months ago say that public 
education is a legacy of the Communist revolution. And so maybe that is 
not the intent of this bill, but it sure gives that intent when you 
hear some of the rhetoric from the other side.
  My colleague from Indiana talked about the Titanic, that nobody would 
get on the lifeboat. Those of us who saw the Titanic will remember how 
those gates were closed for those people in steerage. Those 7,500 
children may be able to get out and get that lifeboat, but we are 
leaving thousands and tens of thousands still in steerage with the 
gates closed and without the opportunity that fixing public education 
really needs to be done.
  Public education is available for everyone. It is irresponsible to 
have a voucher bill that takes scarce public funds and uses it for 
private schools, to only educate those few who maybe will make it out 
of steerage and maybe break down that gate or sneak around that gate, 
but not break the whole gate down so everyone can have that 
opportunity. That is what public education is about.
  The tuition costs in private schools in the D.C. area is far greater 
than the value of the vouchers. So we are only going to be able to help 
those few students, Madam Speaker, who will be able to have their 
parents to match that, because the tuition is going to be so much more. 
Again, we are throwing up barriers. We really ought to fix the D.C. 
schools, and not only fix it for 10 percent of the students.
  Madam Speaker, I hope this bill will be defeated.

                          ____________________