[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.
____________________