[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2660-H2671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The Chair would like to ask
those in the gallery to refrain from any audible conversation.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I have here a book that I prepared in anticipation of
this
[[Page H2661]]
discussion. I have in this book the 20 fallacies that are argued in
opposition to the provision of these scholarship opportunities for
these children.
Let me begin by extending my compliments to the opposition. Already,
before the debate is over, I believe you have covered all 20. There are
a few in particular that I want to call attention to for just a moment.
One, I can predicate my remarks by the observation that there is an
old adage in psychology that says, ``You always get more of what it is
you really don't want.'' Generally that is a sort of a self-inflicted
unintentional consequence that just comes from our neurosis.
In this case we have the most fascinating case. There is a test of
constitutionality that does in fact also cover civil rights law that
was established by the Supreme Court. It is called the lemon test. This
bill was carefully written so that it meets the lemon test. That came
as a big, big disappointment to the opposition of the bill that were
counting on being able to attack the bill on the lemon test, on
constitutionality.
The lemon test is three-part. It says if the choice where to use
assistance is made by the parents of the students, then it passes the
test if that choice is made by the parents of the students, not the
government. We pass the test if the program does not create a financial
incentive to choose private schools. And we pass the test if it does
not involve the government in the school's affairs.
There is a specific provision in the bill on page 25 that says Not
School Aid: ``A scholarship under this Act shall be considered
assistance to the student and shall not be considered assistance to an
eligible institution.'' The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)
appeared before the Committee on Rules yesterday and asked for a rule
that would allow him to amend the bill to drop that. When queried by
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) as to why he would want
to do such a thing, which would of course make it subject to
unconstitutionality under the test, his response was, and I quote, that
his provision would offer an additional attack on the constitutionality
because it would be essentially funding parochial schools.
{time} 1345
I appreciate the dedication of the opposition, and I appreciate the
Committee on Rules that quite wisely did not allow the amendment to be
put in order for no reason other than to afford the opportunity to
realize their worst dreams so they could kill the opportunity for the
children.
As my colleagues know, I do not mind being dedicated, but I do think
they ought to be more creative and a little less transparent in that we
passed the constitutionality test.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I would like to refer the gentleman from
Texas to the Wisconsin decision and to the Ohio decision. In both of
those decisions the court said they were applying the lemon test, and
in both of those decisions the court said the publicly funded vouchers
of the precise kind at issue here did not meet the lemon test.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New York City (Mr. Meeks) specifically from Queens, New York.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia for yielding this time to me.
As indicated, I represent the Sixth Congressional District in Queens,
New York, and I succeeded a man who I respect, who is my friend, who I
think has done a great deal, the Reverend Floyd Flake. However, on this
issue he was incorrect. On this issue dealing with school vouchers, the
individuals that I represent in the Sixth Congressional District
overwhelmingly believe in public education and are against school
vouchers.
Madam Speaker, I think the reason that that occurs is, I can testify
to, because of the fact that I am a product of public education, I have
two daughters who are now attending public schools, that, in fact, all
children can learn. And I think from the debate that I have heard here
today I have not heard anyone say that only a few children can learn,
but they are talking about children and their ability to learn so that
we can have a better tomorrow. And if, in fact, we concede that all
children can learn, then it seems to me it should be our responsibility
to make sure that they all have that opportunity, and in order to do
that the answer is very easy.
We must make sure that public schools are there to educate all and
that those, whether it is religious purposes or et cetera, want their
kids to go to a different school, they are going to a different school
not because they do not have the ability to learn in a public school
but because they choose to go to a religious or private school.
So, therefore, I think it is our task and our mission and our jobs to
make sure that everybody in public education has an opportunity to
learn, not just a few. We should not have just a few good public high
schools or a few good public junior high schools or a few good public
elementary schools; every one should be. We should set a standard so we
can make sure that all of the public schools reach that standard, and
that standard is this.
It seems simple that we found that where there are smaller class
sizes, where we have educated teachers, where we made sure that there
is opportunities for the young people to enhance their environment, for
example, junior varsity sports and all, math and science courses and
all, we then improve the educations of our children.
Madam Speaker, I am against and I oppose this bill, S. 1502; and I
thank the gentlewoman for having yielded me the time.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, one quick note, again, on this constitutionality issue
that is very intriguing. Of course, when this bill is signed into law,
if it is tested in the courts it will be in the Federal courts and go
under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. And the good news is their
bad news. It will not be tested before the Wisconsin State Supreme
Court.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) my good friend.
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I have only one reluctance in speaking, and
that is to disagree with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) who I consider one of the most capable, talented,
passionate, intelligent and effective Members in Congress. And so that
is my only reluctance because I believe passionately in the D.C.
Student Opportunities Scholarship Program. I believe passionately that,
as a Member of Congress in charge of and having responsibilities for
the District of Columbia, we need to do something to stir it up a
little bit to start to see how we can make positive changes.
A few years ago, I opposed school vouchers, and I remember having
changed my decision because I began to realize that was a false
position. And I came back to my office where the NEA was meeting with
my staff, and they were very serious. And my staff was very serious.
And I asked, ``What's going on?''
One of the individuals from the NEA and some members from the CEA in
Connecticut said, ``Well, we came by to tell your staff member that we
can no longer support you for Congress because of your decision to
support vouchers.''
My response to that individual was I know that is the case, and that
is why it took me 3 years longer than it should have to do the right
thing and make up my mind that we need a demonstration voucher program.
I view this more as a scholarship program in D.C. It is only
impacting 2,000 students, who are randomly chosen. It is going to give
students the opportunity and parents the opportunity to apply for a
grant of $3,200 to send their child to another school if they want. We
are going to see how parents react and what parents want in D.C. Then
we will know how to redesign the public school system and provide the
extra resources which D.C. will need in order to improve its system.
So I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) on this bill.
It is a modest bill, which offers a demonstration program. As a pilot
program it only goes to a few, but the students are chosen randomly. It
is not taking the best and the brightest out of the system.
Madam Speaker, I just hope dearly that this legislation passes. I am
happy
[[Page H2662]]
the Senate passed it, and I hope the President has the good sense to
try this demonstration scholarship program.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Replying to the distinguished majority leader's view of who would
decide this matter and what might be decided, I quote first from the
Wisconsin court:
Nonetheless, we accept the State's premise that, in
reviewing the program, we may and perhaps must consult the
United States Supreme Court cases applying the primary effect
test. This test is the second of three parts of the lemon
test.
Quoting also the Ohio court:
While it is clear that Section 7, Article I of the Ohio
Constitution provides a source of protection against State
funding of sectarian schools independent of the Establishment
Cause, the case law construing this section indicates that
its protection against State funding of sectarian
institutions is essentially coextensive with that afforded by
the Establishment Clause.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia for her leadership and, hoping that if my time
goes over she will yield me an additional 30 seconds, I rise in
opposition to this legislation.
I was hoping my good friend from Texas was holding up, rather than
the 20 fallacies of the D.C. voucher bill, I was wishing he was holding
up the Bible that says, ``Do unto thy neighbors like you would have
your neighbor do unto you.'' Or the 23rd Psalm in the book that we read
frequently that says, the Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He is
making the schoolchildren of the District of Columbia want.
This is a misguided proposition dealing with school vouchers. It is
to suggest that school vouchers equal excellence in education. If the
schoolchildren in Washington, D.C., are really our concern, we should
fund math and science and reading programs to provide them with the
kinds of tools they need. Vouchers say that private school buildings
are better than public school buildings. That is all it is about.
The tomfoolery of thinking that the private voucher is going to
educate a child is absolutely wrong. Four years of vouchers in
Milwaukee suggests that vouchers do nothing more than public schools.
In fact, there is no evidence that vouchers will help educate a child.
It takes $12,000 to educate a child in a private school here in
Washington, D.C. The vouchers are for $33,200. The number of children
that can participate is 2,000. In fact, we have 77,000 children in the
District of Columbia, 77,000 children.
Do my colleagues know what that means? Two thousand children are
spending $45 million of the American tax dollars.
This is clearly tomfoolery, and I believe that we should go to the
heart of the matter, create an atmosphere for all children in America
to live and to learn. And if our opposition says that public schools
are equal to communism, then we know we are going the wrong direction.
I believe the American public wants good education for their
children. The D.C. voucher system is an unfair system pointed at people
that cannot help themselves. Let us do the right thing and vote for
public school education so that all of the children of America can rise
high in the sun.
Madam Speaker, I hope we read the Bible. The Lord is my shepherd; I
shall not want.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) my good friend.
Mr. RIGGS. Madam Speaker, I certainly am not asserting that
continuation of our public schools is equivalent to maintaining a
Communist authoritarian system of government. I will say that the
District of Columbia public schools has too many individuals involved
in the operation of those schools who are neglectful, and there is just
simply too much malfeasance and even corruption in the District of
Columbia government, and every Member serving in this body knows that.
Secondly, with respect to the argument that there is not enough
funding here to provide enough scholarships, the fact of the matter is
that we now have a lottery conducted yesterday that would grant over a
thousand privately funded scholarships. This legislation would fund
another 2,000 some odd scholarships a year. So, all of a sudden, we can
take that argument and stand it on its ear.
I mean, are they actually arguing that, because we cannot serve all,
we should not serve some? Would they support a program that would allow
every low-income family in the District of Columbia to have a
scholarship for their children?
I also want to bring up special education here in a moment, but I
need to confer with the majority leader if I can do that.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I will not abide reckless charges on the floor, and
the thing I want to say is that there is no corruption in the D.C.
Public schools or anywhere else. I think there is, and we have asked
for investigations. But when the gentleman rises on the floor to allege
what everybody knows, I challenge him to cite me an instance, and if he
cannot, then I tell him, and he did not yield to me, and so I shall not
yield to him, but I tell him this much:
This Member will not accept his reckless charges on this floor or his
stereotypes, and until he is willing to turn over to this Member an
example of such charges I ask him to keep his charges to himself.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of this
great debate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) for her leadership on this issue.
I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 1502, the so-called D.C.
Opportunities Scholarship. Scholarships are generally awarded to one on
the premise of their merits and their deeds. This is not a scholarship
bill, it is a voucher; and a voucher is a voucher is a voucher, despite
attempts to put a pretty face on a bad bill.
I really do not have to stand and speak for the people of California,
my State, because they have already spoken and they have said no to
vouchers, and so have many other States. School vouchers drain
taxpayers' dollars from public schools into private and religious
schools. This hurts the vast majority of children who are left behind
in public schools.
Americans oppose transferring taxpayer dollars from public to private
education by a 54 to 39 percent margin. We need to provide more
resources for options that are making a positive difference in public
schools like charter schools which is showing great promise in my State
of California.
{time} 1400
Democrats believe that we should improve public schools. Vouchers are
not the solution to improve public education. This Congress should be
passing legislation that affirms that quality public education should
be the inalienable right of every child in America. Vote ``no'' on this
private voucher; vote ``no'' on this bill.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 1502, the ``so-
called'' D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Act. Scholarships are generally
awarded on one's own merits and deeds. This is not a scholarship bill.
It's a voucher, AND a voucher IS a voucher, IS a voucher--despite
attempts to put a pretty name on a bad bill.
I really don't have to stand and speak for California, MY STATE,
because the people of California have already spoken--no to vouchers!
And so have many other states.
School vouchers drain taxpayers dollars from public schools into
private and religious schools. This hurts the vast majority of
children, who are left behind in the public schools.
Americans oppose transferring taxpayer dollars from public into
private education by a 54-39% margin.
We need to provide more resources for options that are making a
positive difference in public schools, like charter schools--which are
showing great promise in my state of California.
Democrats believe that we should be improving public schools. How are
we improving public schools when you leave 76,000 students behind.
[[Page H2663]]
This DC voucher plan provides only a few DC public school students
(2,000) with vouchers--while providing no answers for 76,000 students.
The DC public schools need to be improved--not abandoned.
Yet Republicans now want to use Washington, DC as a laboratory for
their ``social experiments'' with a concept that has been resoundingly
rejected by voters all over the country.
Vouchers are not the solution to improve public school education.
This Congress should be passing legislation that affirms that quality
public school education should be the inalienable right of every child
in America.
Vote ``no'' on private vouchers--Vote ``no'' on this bill .
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority
leader for yielding me this time.
There is a simple realization that confronts us today in this
chamber, and that is, despite the very concerted efforts of some very
dedicated people, the schools of the District of Columbia, this
Nation's seat of government, for which this body bears ultimate
constitutional responsibility, those schools are in crisis. And for the
parents of the District of Columbia and for their children, this simple
notion should reign supreme.
In this land of the free, those parents should have the freedom to
choose which school they believe to be best for their children, and
this tool of scholarships is something needed in terms of educational
triage for a system that sadly has failed the citizens of the District
of Columbia, has failed the students of the District of Columbia. That
is why we stand here today in the well of this House to reaffirm the
notion of freedom and choice.
Imagine if your child had to go to a school daily where there were
unsafe conditions, where someone could not learn; and it is for the
children we make this pledge and we make this vote, and that is why I
am pleased to support the legislation of the gentleman from Texas.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who is also a member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time. Madam Speaker, public funds are entrusted basically for the
use of the greatest, broadest public good, not for selected use or
discrimination or to put forward for 3 percent of the people. That
seems to make a second privileged class, those that are already
fortunate enough and wealthy enough to be able to afford a private
education, and now 3 percent of other formerly public school children
are going to have the privilege of going where others are not.
It does not address the issue; it does not address the issue that was
just spoken to by our good friend from Arizona, schools that may not be
as good as the good public schools that we do have, and we do have good
public schools. The answer is to make sure that all of our public
schools are as good as they can be, as good as those that are already
good; to fix those broken schools to make sure the curriculum works, to
make sure that every child that attends public school has good
teachers; to make sure that we measure their progress, and to make sure
that everybody has the opportunity to move up the economic ladder in
this country and have hope and have a good life.
Vouchers do not improve schools. They draw away the source of money
that could improve schools. They are not fair. They do not provide an
opportunity for every student that wants to move to a private school.
They target some and give them an opportunity to move, possibly, but
there are not enough private schools to deal with having this be a fair
program, and there are not enough dollars being put in to let every
child go to the private school that he or she may want to go to.
There is no way that I could foresee the majority appropriating
enough money to give $3,200 to each of the 50 million plus public
school children to have this be a fair program. If we want to fix the
public schools, and that is what the majority wants to do, why do we
not see some evidence of that? Every opportunity that we have to fix
the public schools, and there is no Federal role in the public school
system in the local communities.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 1 minute
to my good friend, the gentleman from from California (Mr. Rogan).
Mr. ROGAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Madam Speaker, in northern California some time ago, a young boy was
sent to a high school, Gompers High School. He was the son of a
convicted felon and an alcoholic. On his first day of school he was
told by the assistant dean, All you need to do is show up for homeroom.
We do not care if you show up the rest of the day. He was confused. He
asked at the end of the meeting why that was so important, and he was
told, Because at homeroom is where we take attendance, and that is
where our money comes from, and as long as we get our money, we do not
care if you show up the rest of the day.
I know that story well, Madam Speaker, because that young boy was me.
There are many children who are going into buildings just like
Gompers Continuation School. These buildings have the word ``school''
on top of them, but they are not giving an education. We are condemning
the poorest people in the poorest neighborhoods to a lifetime of pain
instead of the promise of education.
Let us give the children of Washington, D.C. who are least able to
afford to have a decent education and have a chance for a real future
the opportunity to have what every single child of a Member of Congress
has: a good education for a good future.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), the State whose voters rejected vouchers twice.
Mr. FARR of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, one thing we all have in common in our districts is we
all have roads, and we all have schools. If people been watching the
debate on the floor, they would know that we committed ourselves to
fixing the roads in America. We did that just a couple of weeks ago by
passing BESTEA: $219 billion we are going to put into the road system
in America. But when it comes to fixing schools, we put zero, zip,
none, no money into fixing schools, not a drop of Federal dollars. We
have educational programs, but far less spent on that than we do on
roads. So if we want to fix schools like we fix roads, we need to spend
some more money.
Now, my colleagues do not suggest that in the road problem that we
give vouchers for fixing the roads, but that is what my colleagues are
suggesting here. It will not fix our educational system without a
commitment of funds. If we were to give the same commitment to
education that we just gave to roads, we would appropriate this year
$219 billion. That is how we fix education.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might inquire of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia how many speakers she has
remaining?
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, at this time it looks like around three.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I believe I have the right to close debate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. ARMEY. That being the case, since I have two speakers, three at
the most, perhaps it would be advisable if the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia might want to go ahead and yield to one of her
speakers.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, the discussion here during this floor
debate today may be focused on a proposal of private school vouchers in
the District of Columbia, but it has larger ramifications throughout
the country.
[[Page H2664]]
For example, in my home State of New Jersey, Governor Whitman has
proposed implementing a private school voucher program in our State. Of
course, this proposal has drawn considerable criticism from both
Republicans and Democrats in the New Jersey State Legislature.
Therefore, it is not clear if Governor Whitman will go ahead with her
plan. But what we do here sends a message to the rest of the country,
and we hope that we do not send the wrong message.
On a larger level, it disturbs me that proposals of vouchers have
been used as an attempt to gain support in low-income communities.
Basically, they have billed vouchers as a way to level the playing
field for poor students who cannot afford private school, and they
believe that they will win points in urban districts. However, they do
not tell parents and students that the funds will be taken out of the
public school system, therefore making a bad system even worse. They
fail to inform them that students will not be protected by civil rights
laws because they do not apply to private schools. While touting these
vouchers as a saving grace for urban students, they do not provide the
assurance that special education laws are adhered to in the schools.
So I ask that we defeat this proposal, and let us support and
strengthen the public school system in this country.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the Chairman of the Republican
Policy Committee.
Mr. COX of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the majority leader for
yielding me this time and thank him for bringing this to the floor for
the kids. That is what this is about. It is not about legality, it is
not about technicality, it is about whether these kids are going to get
a chance.
The truth is, they need a chance. Last year for the first time
District students, for which Congress is responsible, we are not
responsible as the mayor of any city in the country, but we are
responsible for D.C., and the kids for which we are responsible, in
this Chamber right here, took the Stanford 9 achievement test for the
first time. This test is used across the country, has been since 1923.
Millions of kids have taken it, but the District schools never took it
before, and here is what we found out.
In reading, 15 percent of the first-graders tested ranked below
basic. That means that they did not have even the minimum skills
necessary to go to the second grade. That was not all that far off the
national average; it was a few points ahead of the national average,
but that was for first-graders.
What we found is that the longer these kids stayed in the D.C.
system, the worse it got for them, who are just like the other kids
around the rest of the country. Forty-one percent of the second-graders
tested below basic, compared to 15 percent the year before. By the time
they were in tenth grade, 53 percent were below basic. That means they
could not go on to the next grade because they could not read. The same
thing happened in math. By the tenth grade, 89 percent of D.C. kids are
below basic in math.
We already spend over $9,000 per pupil. That is the fourth highest in
the Nation. Money is not the problem; the system is the problem. Let us
not put the system ahead of the kids, let us put the kids first. This
is our chance to do it. If we turn our backs on these kids now, it is
their future, but we can do something to help them, and this is our
opportunity to help them. I thank the majority leader for giving us
this opportunity on the floor. Now, let us just do it.
Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record.
How D.C.'s Schools Can Lead the Nation
(By Rep. Christopher Cox)
Every parent knows that early education is essential to a
child's future. But new reading and math achievement tests in
the District of Columbia show that D.C.'s public schools are
failing an entire generation of students. D.C. students have
the same potential as every American child, yet the more time
they spend in D.C. schools, the more poorly they do compared
to other American children.
Today, just as the District of Columbia is poised to reap
the benefits of tremendous economic growth, its young people
may not be able to take advantage of unprecedented
opportunities. Good jobs are plentiful, and the unemployment
rate in the region is one of the lowest in the nation. It is
imperative that children growing up in the Nation's capital
receive the kind of education that will permit them to take
advantage of these opportunities.
Congress is constitutionally responsible for the District
of Columbia. If a national education policy is ever to be
taken seriously, then Congress must first show it can achieve
results in this modestly-sized city by the Potomac.
d.c. in the 1990s: awash with opportunity for new graduates
The District of Columbia is one of the wealthiest regions
in the nation. Despite a population of only 500,000, the
District has a gross economic product of almost $50 billion,
with nearly two-thirds coming from non-governmental sources
such as services, finance, insurance and real estate, and
transportation and utilities. According to the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, District residents' per capita personal
income was $34,129 in 1996--higher than any state in the
union, and almost $10,000 above the national average. The
District also compares favorably to other metropolitan areas.
D.C. metropolitan-area average annual pay is ninth in the
country, behind such lucrative locales as New York, San
Francisco, and the wealthy suburbs of New Jersey.
Furthermore, the District is expected to remain wealthy area
for the foreseeable future: its gross economic product is
projected to increase at least 20% by 2025.
Today's students will benefit from these job opportunities
only if they learn the skills employers will need in the
years to come. Already, the region suffers from a shortage of
skilled workers. The unemployment rate in the D.C.
metropolitan area was only 3.9% in 1996, significantly below
the so-called ``natural'' unemployment rate of 5.5%. The
District itself, however, suffers from unemployment well
above the natural rate, indicating that District residents,
many of them products of the D.C. schools, are unable to
satisfy employers--even in one of the nation's best markets
for job seekers.
In the 21st century, the D.C. economy will be even more
dependent on knowledge-based workers. Unfortunately,
knowledge-based workers will need two basic skills--reading
and math--that D.C. schools are failing to provide to their
students.
recent test results from d.c. schools
Last year, for the first time, District students took the
Stanford 9 math and reading achievement tests--the nation's
best-known achievement test. The Stanford 9 is a privately
owned and operated test used by school systems across the
country. It is the ninth version of the exam, which millions
of American schoolchildren have taken since it was created in
1923. Stanford takes great care to ensure that the test is
not biased in any way, including having a panel of prominent
minority-group educators review the test. The results show
that D.C. students' scores, upon entering the D.C. public
schools, are roughly comparable to average student scores
nationwide. The longer students remain in District public
schools, however, the more their scores fall below both their
initial levels of achievement and the national average. In
fact, in the highest grades tested, the number of D.C.
students who lack basic skills was twice the national average
in reading, and one and a half times the national average in
math.
Reading
Fifteen percent of the first-graders tested ranked ``below
basic'' for reading on the Stanford 9 test. This means they
had little or no mastery of the skills needed to enter second
grade. This figure is roughly comparable to the national
average of 12%. But the number of students ``below basic''
grew dramatically as children continued in the D.C. schools:
41% of the second graders tested ranked ``below basic,'' and
53% of tenth graders tested were ``below basic.''
Math
Thirty-seven percent of the third graders tested (the
youngest students to take the math test) ranked ``below
basic'' in math. The next level tested in math, the sixth
grade, showed 55% ``below basic''--an increase of 33% after
three years in D.C. public schools. By the tenth grade, a
staggering 89% were ``below basic'' in math. Another 8%
ranked as ``basic''--possessing only partial mastery of the
most rudimentary math skills. Only three percent of District
tenth graders were either proficient or advanced in math.
Many of the individual schools are far worse than even
these dismal overall scores. At no less than 22 D.C. public
schools, over 90% of the students rank ``below basic'' in
math. At three of these schools, 100% of the students tested
ranked ``below basic.'' Not one student at any of these
schools showed any of the math skills needed for their
grades.
Worse, as the Washington Post reported on January 8, 1998,
these results do not include ``almost 4,000 tests that could
not be scored because so few answers were filled out.'' This
is 10% of the reading tests that were scored, and a quarter
of the math tests that were scored. In other words, 4,000
D.C. students lacked the skills needed to fail the test.
They were all below zero.
The Solution: Educational Choice, for the Kids
The D.C. public schools must change if their graduates are
to succeed in life. And Congress--which bears the
constitutional responsibility for the governance of the
District--must help.
[[Page H2665]]
Already, Congress and the American people have been
generous with tax dollars: according to the most recent
Department of Education figures, the District spends $9,335
per pupil, the fourth highest in the nation. This year, it
will cost more than one-half billion dollars to run the
District's public education system. Clearly, money alone is
not enough.
Instead, both Houses of Congress have separately passed the
District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of
1997. This measure, which passed the House as part of the
1997 D.C. appropriations package, has already been introduced
as freestanding legislation by Majority Leader Dick Armey
(H.R. 1797). The bill will provide tuition scholarships to
about 2,000 low-income students in the District of Columbia
to enable them to attend the school of their choice, as well
as providing extra tutoring assistance for 2,000 public-
school students.
D.C. parents clearly want better opportunities for their
children than the D.C. public schools provide. The non-profit
Washington Scholarship Fund announced that it would provide
1,000 new scholarships to enable low-income District children
to attend the private or religious school of their parents'
choice. As of the January 31, 1998 application deadline,
7,573 children had applied for the 1,000 scholarships.
According to House Majority Leader Dick Armey, ``This
response is the strongest evidence yet that parents are
frustrated by their lack of access to the best possible
education for their children.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research from school systems that offer educational choice
demonstrates that giving parents the opportunity to choose
their children's schools improves learning, and test scores,
for children throughout the entire system. Data from
Milwaukee, for example, show clear increases in reading and
math scores--so much so that, according to a recent study,
``If similar success could be achieved for all minority
students nationwide, it could close the gap separating white
and minority test scores by somewhere between one-third and
one-half.'' And parental choice provides competition that can
help reduce costs in public and private schools alike,
resulting in better deduction that is also more affordable.
New York City's Catholic schools, for example, educate
students at approximately one-third the cost of the city's
public schools.
According to Samuel Stanley, Vice President for Research of
the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, ``Several
studies of public school competition with other public and
private schools have found competition improves public school
performance. We need to create similar markets for students
within school districts to provide the right incentives for
using current resources productively and efficiently.'' \2\
Brian Bennett, Director of School Operations for the School
Futures Research Foundation, agrees: ``The most striking
example of the competitive change that can result is no doubt
found in Albany, New York, where a most generous
philanthropist, Virginia Gilder, offered a $2,000 scholarship
to every child in one of the city's lowest performing
schools--and one-sixth of the student body left. Changes then
instituted by the local board were dramatic--the principal of
the old school was ousted, nine new teachers where brought
in, two assistant principals were added, and the school
received investments in books, equipment, and teacher
training that had been neglected for years. Competition works
to improve the education of all children.'' \3\ As Peter M.
Flanigan, the investment banker who founded the Student/
Sponsor Partnership in New York, put it, ``The alternative to
a crushing monopoly is competition. When a monopoly faces
real competition it always reacts by improving itself.'' \4\
The D.C. Student Opportunities Scholarship Act will enable
D.C. students to succeed in the expanding economy in which
they live. While President Clinton promised to veto the
Opportunity Scholarship Act, even if it meant killing all
funding for the District, these latest D.C. test scores show
the status quo is unacceptable. We can no longer trap
thousands of students in schools that fail to prepare them
for the marvelous opportunities at their very doorstep. Mr.
Clinton owes it to the children of America's capital city to
sign the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Act the moment it
reaches his desk.
The following are the results of Washington D.C. students'
spring 1997 Stanford 9 Achievement Test in reading and math.
(Excerpt from The Washington Post, October 30, 1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC public
schools National
Grade level below average
basic (percent)
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading:
1............................................. 15 12
2............................................. 41 25
3............................................. 41 25
4............................................. 45 24
5............................................. 36 22
6............................................. 31 21
8............................................. 34 22
10............................................ 53 26
Math:
3............................................. 37 11
6............................................. 55 43
8............................................. 72 42
10............................................ 89 61
11............................................ 53 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The reading test covers areas such as sounds and letters, word
reading, reading vocabulary, sentence reading, and reading
comprehension depending on the students' grade level. The mathematics
portion of the test focuses on problem solving and math procedures.
The test was given for the first time to D.C. school students in May
1997. It was not administered to children in all grade levels because
it was a part of a pilot program administered by the school district.
This year, every D.C. student in grades 1-11 will take both the
mathematics and reading portions of this exam.
footnotes
\1\ The evidence in other cities is just as stark. In New
York City, 23,000 families applied for 1,000 private
scholarships for grades 1-5 at private schools of their
choice. Peter Flanigan, Founder, Student/Sponsor
Partnerships, Testimony before the House Education and the
Workplace Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee,
Education at a Crossroads Field Hearing, May 5, 1997.
\2\ Samuel Staley, Testimony before the House Education and
the Workforce Oversight and Investigations Committee, Federal
Education Programs Evaluation--Field Hearing on Public School
Choice, May 27, 1997.
\3\ Brian Bennett, Testimony before the House Education and
the Workforce Committee Early Childhood, Youth and Families
Subcommittee on School Choice in D.C., March 12, 1998.
\4\ Flanigan Testimony.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I do not think any one of us could say that the public school system
in the United States in many areas of the country is not in serious
trouble. I do not think many of us would disagree that whatever
happens, the public school system in the United States has to be helped
and made better.
It is somewhat tragic to me when I hear this debate, because I know
that everybody is well-meaning, and I really believe that all of the
Members of this Congress want to do the best they can for the children
of the United States. But the fact of the matter is that at a cost of a
voucher of $3,200, it seems to me that what you are doing is dangling
out to poor parents by telling them that their public school is no good
is sort of a pie-in-the-sky idea, because I don't know of any private
schools, many of them, that would be able to pay the tuition of $3,200.
How much better it would be for every child in the country if the
public school system was brought up to standard. We have an obligation
for that.
{time} 1415
When this country was settled, the first thing the settlers did in
every community was to build a church and build a school, understanding
that it was their personal obligation to educate their children. We
need to dedicate ourselves today not to ways to getting around the
public school system, but to dedicating ourselves to making it be what
it ought to be.
If we are going to be able to compete in the next century, every
child in this country needs the best education it can get. No child
should be left behind. Instead of offering out the notion that somehow
they are all going to go to some exclusive school for $3,200, let us
pledge ourselves to see what we have to do to rebuild these schools, to
rededicate ourselves to the idea that the public school system is the
backbone of our democracy.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Riggs).
Mr. RIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey), the majority leader, for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I just want to point out how absurd the arguments are
in opposition to this, because the District of Columbia is already
relying extensively on private schools. This is the Washington Post,
April 28, and I quote, ``The District of Columbia, which is under court
order to test and place students with special needs, is spending more
than $40,000 a pupil,'' you heard me right, $40,000 a kid in some
cases, ``to pay tuition, transportation and other costs of private
schools because the city lacks a sound special education program. More
and more parents are insisting that their children be classified as
having special needs because it is a way out of the District of
Columbia public schools.''
Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) that the ongoing audit of the District of
Columbia public schools recently found that the District of Columbia
had failed to pay the private schooling costs of thousands of children
with learning disabilities and special needs, amounting to hundreds of
thousands of dollars in unpaid bills. I submit that that is concrete
evidence of neglect, incompetence and mismanagement.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H2666]]
Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that the District of
Columbia is under a Control Board because of its dire financial
condition, and the Congress of the United States bears a heavy
responsibility for that.
May I also indicate to the gentleman that we love our private
schools. We love our religious schools. Because of them, many residents
who would otherwise move out stay here. If, in fact, the competition
from private schools was sufficient to help bring up public schools,
then the District of Columbia would be among the most excellent in the
world.
Let me be clear, I am not now and never shall be an apologist for the
public schools of the District of Columbia, although I attended these
same schools and got a good education during the years when the
Congress of the United States required that they be segregated under
law.
At the same time, I shall not abandon these schools. Nor will I
require or expect that any parent or any child remain in the D.C.
public schools until they are brought up to par. I renew my challenge
to the majority to let us raise private money for private schools
together, particularly because most of these schools will necessarily
be religious schools that cannot be publicly funded under the
Constitution of the United States.
Madam Speaker, Christ said, ``Render under Caesar the things which
are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.'' Public money
belongs in public schools.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of this debate, I said there were two
great beneficiaries of school choice. The first institutional
beneficiary is public schools, because it is because of school choice
that public schools find the incentive to improve themselves.
We know that works. We saw it work in Albany, New York, when Virginia
Gilder, the philanthropist, found the worst school in the city, offered
$2,000 scholarships to the parents of each child to move their child to
a school of their choice. One-sixth of the parents took that offer up.
They moved their children.
It so startled the school district that, as The Washington Post
reported, the school board ousted the principal, brought in nine new
teachers, added two assistant principals, invested in books, equipment,
and teacher training after years of neglect.
Madam Speaker, competition works. We all agreed we should break up
AT&T because if there were a monopoly on the block it would not be
innovative or responsive, it would not meet the needs of the consumers.
Why would Members think a public monopoly is any more benevolent than a
private monopoly? We are breaking up the monopoly so they can have the
incentive to compete.
But that is not where the heart lies. The heart lies with the
children. And let me tell my colleagues, I know these kids, I spend
time with these kids. This is not an abstraction with me.
I think of poor little David, 9 years old. His mother is on drugs.
His father only shows up once and a while to use the little guy. He
found himself with an opportunity to attend one of these schools by a
scholarship through the Washington Scholarship Fund, and he gets his
own little 9-year-old self up out of bed every day and gets himself to
school because at school he is loved and he learns.
David was not the cream of the crop. He tested below grade level, and
the school reached out and took him, as they did five children in
Anacostia that we know. All tested below grade level. But the schools
took them, nurtured them, taught them, and they are all doing just fine
now.
We have got little William who is now a freshman who has turned his
entire life around. This boy was headed for big trouble. But he got out
of the school in which he felt trapped, that expected so little of him
that he gave so little to himself, and now he has turned his little
life around.
And then there is Kenny. Kenny had a bad start of it. He got an
opportunity. Kenny will now go to high school at the best school in
D.C. based on the merit of his work.
I said at the beginning we are dedicated to improving the schools. We
cannot improve the schools if we keep giving the schools everything
they ask for and never make demands on them and never hold them
accountable.
City government in D.C. cannot hold these schools accountable. It
cannot hold itself accountable. The Federal Government cannot hold it
accountable. If the parents hold the schools accountable, the schools
will improve for the children. This is about the children. Let me just
say: Have a heart.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) the minority
leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate the comments that
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Majority Leader, just made. I
take very seriously the idea that he says that Republican Members of
the House are concerned about the children and concerned about
education. I accept that completely.
I believe Members, all Members of this House want to improve the
education and the upbringing of all of our children. That is a very
important beginning agreement. We have a disagreement, obviously, about
the role of vouchers and whether or not to take some of the money that
we are spending on public education to give to vouchers that can be
used in private and other schools. But we ought to build on our
agreement rather than suffering from this ongoing disagreement.
All of us want the children of the District of Columbia and every
other jurisdiction in the country to succeed, to learn, to have proper
values, to be productive, healthy citizens. That must be our number one
goal. We believe that vouchers do not advance us toward that goal. Our
concern, which is sincere and heartfelt, is that the children that are
left behind will do worse, worse as a result of this legislation.
Seventy-six thousand youngsters will not have the benefit of the
vouchers. The 7,000 who get them may do better; they may not do better.
But the 76,000 that are left behind will be hurt.
Madam Speaker, what we should be talking about today are the kinds of
things that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has brought
forward, creative ideas to improve public education. And I take
seriously what the majority leader has said about accountability. We
should be for accountability.
I put in legislation I call ``Reward for Results.'' It says that
Federal aid, at least part of Federal aid, ought to be conditioned upon
a school achieving results. We should be able to find out if children
can read, write and compute at certain ages. And we should, in my view,
be willing to condition part of Federal aid on them being able to
achieve those conclusions.
What I would hope we could have here is a discussion between the
parties on creative ideas to fix the public schools that do not work;
to realize that most of the public schools do work and do a very good
job, but the ones that do not, we cannot afford that result.
So, I hope Members will vote against this idea of vouchers. I hope we
will meet again and talk about creative ideas to fix the public
schools, to make them accountable, to get the results that we need, to
make sure that every child is a productive citizen.
I am heartened by what the Majority Leader has said today. I think we
can find an agreement. I do not think this is it. I urge Members to
vote against this bill. I wish the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia had the ability to bring her motion to recommit today, and I
hope that if we could defeat this bill we could come back with a
bipartisan agreement on education that would move us in the right
direction.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt) for his comments. I always appreciate his participation in
the debate.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), Speaker of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Emerson). The Speaker of the House is
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GINGRICH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
[[Page H2667]]
Armey), my friend, for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, for his comments.
Let me say first, I would be very excited to help establish a
bipartisan task force on reforming public education. I would be very
excited to establish a special task force on public education for D.C.
I would be very willing to establish a bipartisan task force to look at
military dependent schools, which I am a product of. I would be very
willing to work on a bipartisan basis to help Indian schools achieve
national levels.
Those are the three school systems, by the way, that are specifically
Federal: military dependent schools, Indian schools, and the District
of Columbia. We have the relationship to D.C. that a State legislature
would have to local schools.
Madam Speaker, I am very willing as a product of public schools, as
somebody whose children went to public school, I have actually lived my
career in a public school. I used to teach in a public high school. I
am committed to public education and I will be glad to work on reform.
But that is not what is here today. And it is interesting how
whatever is here is not what is right, because what is right is not
here, so Members have to vote ``no'' today because today it actually
helps somebody; but if they vote ``no'' today, later they can vote
``yes,'' as long as they do not vote ``yes'' today.
What is here today is real simple. And I must say to all of my
friends on the left, I do not understand how they can walk the streets,
look the children in the eye and cheat them. I do not understand how
they can meet with the parents and tell them no.
We met yesterday with Ted Forstmann, who does not live in D.C. Ted
Forstmann is a very successful American who loves this country, so he
has taken his own personal money and he created a thousand scholarships
because he despaired of this Congress. And he offered a thousand
children a scholarship out of the goodness of his own heart in D.C.
alone.
{time} 1430
But he had a condition. These are not free scholarships. You have to
come up with $500 for your child to get that scholarship. There are
8,000 applications in the District of Columbia. You can talk about home
rule, but the children who are trapped in the failed system spoke with
their application; 8,000 children applied.
That meant that welfare mothers and mothers at minimum wage, families
in public housing were saying, we love our child so much, and we are so
frightened for our child's future that we will scrape together our $500
so that our child has an alternative. Without any effort, 8,000
applied. They believe that, next year, there will be 25,000
applications.
We are seeing the same thing in New York. We are seeing it in
Cleveland. But we are not the State Legislature of New York. We are not
the State Legislature of Ohio. We are the U.S. Congress, and this is
the national capital.
If you have it in your heart to turn to that child, those other
7,000, and say to them, no, I know your parents think your life may be
destroyed, I know you may end up not learning how to read, I know you
may end up a drug addict, I know you may end up a victim of violence,
but, no, I want to take care of the teachers' union, and stay where you
are, if you can live with yourself and vote no, fine; but then, later
on, when you see one of those children and there is another accidental
death, there is another accidental drug overdose, there is another
statistic on welfare, do not look to this side of the aisle and say,
oh, why does that child not have an education.
Some of you say 7,000 is not enough. Fine. We are prepared to move
70,000. We will move 70,000 vouchers if you want to give every child in
this District a chance.
You say to us, well, we are taking money from public education. Every
one of you knows that is not true. Every one of you knows that is just
plain not accurate. This system actually leaves $4,000 more back behind
so that, on a per capita basis, there is actually more money for the
children who stay in public schools.
This is designed by Mr. Armey so the public school child who stays in
public school has more resources because he only offers $3,200 maximum;
whereas, the current system pays somewhere between $7,800 and $10,000,
depending on whether or not you believe any of the records.
So more money for the current child who stays in public school is a
yes vote for the Armey motion. Direct, immediate help for several
thousand children is a yes vote. But if you can live with saying no
when 7,000 additional children have spoken by applying, when their
parents have spoken, when they are crying out to this Congress, save
our child from drugs, save our child from violence, save our child from
illiteracy, save our child from ignorance, then let the burden of
conscience be on those who take care of the teachers' unions but cheat
the children. Vote yes for this bill.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, as a former public school teacher,
concerned citizen, parent and Member of Congress, I am fully aware of
the value of a quality education. One of the first speeches that I made
on the floor of the House emphasized the importance of education in
preventing crime and providing a skilled and capable work force.
Therefore, it troubles me deeply to discover that there is a real,
enthusiastic, and empirical effort to denigrate and erode the federal
commitment to the public schools of our nation via school vouchers. I
am emphatically opposed to school vouchers based on the fact that
vouchers do not work, only benefit those students who receive vouchers,
and is often taxpayer support of private or religious institutions.
Initial results from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the showcase city for the
voucher program, has been marginal, at best. In these fiscally
conservative times, taxpayers deserve to get the most for their tax
dollars as possible. Marginal programs will not suffice. Also, these
voucher schools, more often than not, do not accept children with
physical challenges or remedial needs, and get to pick and choose among
the best and the brightest to attend their institutions. Our public
schools accept all children, regardless of previous educational success
or failure, financial standing, or physical ability.
I am also distressed by the fact that the D.C. voucher bill provides
a select group of students (2,000) with vouchers, while leaving the
other 76,000 students in under-funded public schools. No one would
argue that there is no room for improvement in D.C. public schools.
However, the implementation of vouchers constitutes the abandonment of
D.C. schools and abandonment is not the answer. Congress needs to be
encouraging efforts all across the city to make schools safer, improve
teaching, raise educational standards and provide more teachers in D.C.
classrooms.
Finally, I am leery of this legislation's potential to encroach upon
our First Amendment freedoms. Our Constitution was forged based on the
clear principle providing for the separation of church and state. This
legislation, which would allow the use taxpayer funds to support
private and religious institutions, is clearly the entanglement of
federal funds in religious matters.
Excellence in education begins with our public schools. School
vouchers would take vitally-needed funds from our public schools to
private and parochial institutions. Of course, our public schools need
reform. The price of reform should not be borne on the backs of our
poor children and families, who cannot afford the high price of
vouchers. We need to get serious about reforming and supporting public
schools, not abandoning them in favor of a plan that does not work--
school vouchers.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this poorly
conceived proposal for school vouchers. The test of who you are and
where you stand is what you do, not what you say.
The Republicans say that they are for public education for all, but
what do they do? They propose a plan that will only benefit a few, and
the few are not the students. The few are those who would put profits
in their pockets through a voucher system for private schools that are
not likely to open their doors to all.
A private school by definition is ``exclusive,'' ``inaccessible,''
``restricted,'' ``off limits'' to most, available only to some. How,
then, can we appropriately use public funds to finance the education of
some at the expense of most?
They say the plan promotes choice. But, what they do is provide a
choice for only 2,000 students, and do nothing for the remaining 76,000
students. Is that choice?
They say they are for competition. They say that this voucher plan
will give poor students the same access to good schools that wealthy
students have. But, what they do is provide a maximum voucher of a mere
$3,200. That won't get any poor student into any private school in
Washington, D.C.
[[Page H2668]]
They say they want to help the D.C. school system. But, what they are
really doing is trying to go through the back door and establish a
school voucher program nationwide, something they could not do through
the front door. A nationwide voucher program will hurt students from
the rural communities I represent.
Draining public funds from rural public schools, expecting those
students to go to private schools usually located great distances way
is not only a myth, it is a total deception.
Madam Speaker, there are ways to help our public schools, and they do
need help.
This week, Democrats unveiled an agenda for ``first class'' public
schools. That agenda includes making sure that all of our students have
an early start and an even start, achieving the basics by age six. In
includes producing well trained teachers and relief from crumbling and
overcrowded school, while adequately equipping classrooms.
That agenda includes support for local plans to renew neighborhood,
public schools and the adoption of rigorous standards of performance.
And, it includes real parental choice for public schools.
Madam Speaker, there is no right to public education. That is what
the courts have said. But, the courts have also said, when you provide
education to some, you must provide it to all.
In America, for many, many years, we have had, as a national policy,
the promise of providing public education, not just for the few, but
for the many. This voucher plan does not provide education for all.
Vote no, and send this plan back where it belongs.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I find it disheartening that
President Clinton, and others opposing this legislation, would rather
protect a public education system that is failing to educate the
District's children, than do what is best for the families of our
nation's capitol.
I read Monday in Congressional Quarterly's Daily Monitor that one of
the bill's opponents has called the voucher plan, quote, ``an election-
year charade'' which is, quote, ``irrelevant * * * to the pressing
needs of District schoolkids.''
Let me remind my colleagues that this proposal was introduced in a
non-election year (last June) as a bi-partisan, bi-cameral bill. This
is not an election year ``charade'', and it is not a Republican or
conservative issue. If it were, we would not have the support of
leading liberals in the Democratic party such as Senators Joseph
Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Bob Kerrey, and former Representative Floyd
Flake.
That this legislation is ``irrelevant'' to the pressing needs of
District schoolkids could not be further from reality. It is because
the ``pressing'' needs of District schoolkids have continued to go ill-
addressed, and the city's children continue to fall behind, that the
need for this legislation is so desperately needed now.
Two years ago, in 1996, the Financial Control Board reported that,
``The deplorable record of the District's public schools * * * has left
one of the city's most important public responsibilities in a state of
crisis, creating an emergency which can no longer be ignored or
excused.''
That was two years ago! How many more years must District families
wait out this state of ``emergency''? How many more years must children
fall behind in school, increasing their risks of failure in adulthood
because of a sub-standard education?
So many District families cannot afford anything but the current poor
quality of education in the cities' public school system. Vouchers
would give these families a chance to choose a school which can provide
a better education--without taking a single dime from the existing
public school budget--while reforms in the public school system are
being implemented.
Studies show that similar voucher efforts in Cleveland and Milwaukee
are having dramatic positive effects on reading and math skills. This
legislation could be part of the answer to this week's devastating news
about the low reading and math scores of this city's schoolchildren.
Again, it is only part of the solution. We must at the same time show
leadership and support for efforts to improve the infrastructure and
quality of education in the public school system of our nation's
capitol.
We all know that there is no magic bullet. Most reform efforts will
take time. However, this voucher program could provide some immediate
relief to families who do not have a choice with regard to their
child's education.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--please join me in
support of this important legislation. Your vote for this bill is a
vote to put DC's parents immediately on the road to providing a better
education for their children, thus a better and brighter future for
their children.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S.
1502, the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act. The
passage of this bill will not correct the problems we have in our
education system. Taking money from our public school system will only
further hurt our school children.
This legislation is another attempt by the Republican-led Congress to
undermine the integrity of our public school system. S. 1502 diverts
limited tax dollars to nonpublic education. We already spend too little
on our children's future. I cannot in good conscience support a bill
that will further erode millions of children's opportunities for a
quality education.
Madam Speaker, there are approximately 46 million children in our
nation's public schools. By the year 2006, a projected 3 million more
students will be enrolled in public schools. In sharp contrast, only 11
percent of children attend private schools. It is bad public policy to
abandon our federal commitment to public education. What will happen to
students left behind in public schools when their resources are given
away?
Is this really the best use of federal dollars? Instead of siphoning
money into private and parochial schools, I believe we should focus on
fixing the problems in our public schools so that all school children
will benefit. We should rebuild our educational foundation to make our
public schools a safe haven for learning. It is shameful that today we
debate ways to put more children in private schools rather than working
on improving our public schools. A free public school education for all
Americans is one of the basic tenets of our nation. We must not abandon
this principle.
Studies have indicated that the controversial Cleveland voucher
program produces no academic gains for voucher students compared to
their peers in public schools in any academic subject--reading, math,
social studies or science. Moreover, serious accountability problems
have been found in many areas including verifying the voucher
recipients' income level, residence or eligibility. An independent
audit discovered $1.9 million worth of misspent Ohio tax dollars. We
don't want these same problems in the District of Columbia and we don't
want them in our states.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the District of
Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act.
I have always been a staunch believer that matters of education
policy should be decided by the local school board and local elected
officials. Consequently, on matters regarding school vouchers, Congress
should allow the District to make up its own mind, . . . just as every
other locality in the country is able to choose for itself. The people
of the District of Columbia should be deciding themselves whether or
not they want vouchers. Vouchers should not be imposed upon the
citizens of D.C. by members who are elected from other jurisdictions
throughout the United States.
I am opposed to allowing public funds to be used for private and
parochial schools. Such funding has been successfully challenged as
violating the Constitutional mandate calling for the separation of
Church and State. Moreover, there is little evidence that voucher plans
increase student achievement, and the schools that are left behind are
weakened by the loss of the most committed parents and students.
On September 30th of last year, a front page Washington Post story
found that there are not even 2,000 spaces available in private schools
in the local region. In addition, the majority of private schools in
the area charge much more than $3,200.
This is a bad bill if we are concerned about high standards for all
of the children in the District of Columbia public schools. It's just a
``quick-fix'' solution to address the needs of underserved children in
the District. Moreover, official studies of the Milwaukee and Cleveland
voucher programs have said that voucher students have not made academic
gains. The 1998 study of the Cleveland program, by the Ohio State
Department of Education, found no achievement gains for voucher
students in the Cleveland public schools.
There are better ways to spend the $7 million Congress would use to
allow but a few children in the District to attend public and parochial
schools. The D.C. public schools could use $1 million to buy new
textbooks for every 3rd, 4th and 5th grader. The District could use
$3.5 million for 70 after-school programs based in public schools, to
help 7,000 children who would otherwise be ``home alone'' when school
ends each day.
Madam Speaker, this bill would divert scarce tax dollars from D.C.'s
public schools and shift taxpayer dollars into schools that are not
accountable to the community. I am opposed to imposing school vouchers
on the citizens of the District of Columbia, and I urge my colleagues
to vote ``No'' on the District of Columbia Student Opportunity
Scholarship Act.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong and
unequivocable opposition to the bill which is before us today. Vouchers
are not only bad policy but in this instance have clearly become the
political tool
[[Page H2669]]
of the Republican leadership to bash the public school system of the
District of Columbia and this country to play on the fears of our
nation's parents.
Vouchers have received a significant amount of attention over the
past few weeks as we have seen a major push by the Republican
leadership to politically capitalize on the education of our children.
We have heard our Republican colleagues use words like ``scholarships''
instead of vouchers to portray the message which their pollsters have
said is so vital. I am pleased to see so much effort being put into
ensuring that this message is not being lost.
I have never been one to craft my views or modify my position just
because the latest questionable accurate poll has produced certain
conclusions. Instead, we should be concentrating on proposals and ideas
that will increase the quality of education in this country rather than
destroy it.
Regardless, as I am sure it does not come as a surprise to any which
have followed this issue, I am adamantly opposed to any use of public
tax dollars for any voucher-like proposal, including the provisions
included in this bill authorizing vouchers to be used in the District
of Columbia. Not only do these provisions raise some very serious
constitutional questions, but they will do little to help only a few
students while greatly benefiting those whose interests are entrenched
in private schools.
In fact, Representative Army himself has admitted that this bill will
provide vouchers for only 2000 D.C. children. Last time I checked this
would not come close to helping the more than 80,000 school age
children which reside in the District. We cannot and should not ignore
the problems of today's educational system while attempting to
capitalize on political rhetoric. We should give time to the District's
new chief academic officer, Arlene Ackerman, who has led positive
reforms in Seattle, Washington schools, and can and will do the same in
the District.
The Republicans have sought to use D.C. vouchers as the answers to
our Capital City's problems in its school system. This is wrong. Any
proposal which invites the idea of providing private school vouchers
dismantles an educational system which guarantees access for all by
leaving ``choice'' in the hands of private school admissions officers.
In addition to the destruction of equality in the most basic
opportunity--the opportunity to learn--there is not one research study,
despite what some of our witnesses may say today, which accurately
provides evidence that vouchers improve student learning. Because of
this lack of evidence, I see little reason to establish any type of
Federal voucher program, including one in the District of Columbia.
We have seen the existing voucher programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland
provide no improvement in student achievement levels despite the fact
that they have been in operation, at least in the case of Milwaukee,
for over six years. In addition to the complete lack of a policy basis
for enacting any type of private school voucher proposal, the American
people have spoken repeatedly that they have no interest in such
programs. Over 20 States, including the District of Columbia, have held
referenda on this issue and the citizens of all 20 States have rejected
voucher programs.
Our goal as public policy makers should be to construct broad policy
which will improve the educational results of all of our children--not
a select few. One of the most deeply rooted values in this country has
been that all children are guaranteed access to an education. The
public school system has been the institution in this country which has
provided this opportunity. Yes, there are problems in our public
schools, problems which deserve and need our attention. All of us in
Congress realize that the District has a great share of problems in its
public school system.
However, we should not look for quick fixes to a situation which
deserves careful consideration. As I said at a recent hearing in the
Education and Workforce Committee on this subject, those who support
vouchers want to abandon our public schools and the vast majority of
children who would remain in what is already an underfunded system.
Those of us in Congress need to show leadership in combating the
problems that face us as elected leaders--not run away from them.
Only by working within the public school system, both in the District
and throughout the Nation, can we build upon the successes and learn
from our failures in our attempts to educate our Nation's children.
In closing, I would urge members not to support this ill-conceived
and politically motivated bill. Now is not the time to go back on our
educational commitments to our children.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition
to S. 1502, the District of Columbia School Vouchers Act--yet another
attempt by the majority to drain resources from the already needy DC
School system in order to pay for an already rejected experiment.
Madam Speaker, there is no question that DC public schools have
problems. This isn't some new startling revelation; there isn't a
public school system in the country that doesn't have problems. It is
true that there are schools in DC which, for whatever reason, are not
adequately serving the students attending them. But, my colleagues, the
answer to this problem and the problems plaguing public schools in New
York, Chicago or Los Angeles is assuredly not vouchers. Providing a
$3,200 subsidy to private and parochial schools would do nothing but
drain $45 million dollars in federal funds that would otherwise be
available for public schools nationwide.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they are
justified in proposing this bill by pointing to the fact that DC
parents would welcome this kind of assistance. This also isn't news.
What poor family, which have to send their children to an unsafe, run-
down, decrepid school, that doesn't have enough teachers or books,
wouldn't welcome assistance to send their children to a clean safe
well-run private school. But, the cruel political irony of this and
other school voucher proposals is that it would provide help to a small
number of public school students and do nothing for the majority of
students that do not get vouchers and have to remain in their poor run
down schools. What does my Republican colleagues propose to help them?
Madam Speaker, we all know that vouchers isn't the answer. We must
find solutions that will fix the problems in DC and all public schools.
We must build new schools, repair run-down buildings, provide funding
for more teachers so that class sizes can be reduced and funds for
computers and other needed resources. Allowing only 2,000 out of over
80,000 DC students to get a better education will do more harm than
good. Vote no on S. 1502. We must not allow the majority to experiment
on the children of DC while doing further harm to an already desperate
public school system.
Mr. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the District of
Columbia school voucher legislation. This is not the way to improve
public education.
Not one of us is going to contest the assertion that the D.C. public
schools need help. but the way to do this is through comprehensive
school reform, by engaging parents, teachers and the community in
creating and maintaining high performance centers of learning with
challenging academic standards.
Diverting public money to private schools is not a way to improve
education. It is, however, an experiment that is doomed to fail leaving
this city's school children as the casualties. This legislation may
benefit 2,000 D.C. students but abandon 76,000 others. Quality
education for all students, not for a select few, should be our
priority.
Creating a voucher system does not solve the problem, it shifts the
responsibility elsewhere. It also does not guarantee that students from
low-performing schools will meet the admission standards of private
institutions, or that the voucher would even cover the expense of many
private schools.
Public school choice, magnet schools, charter schools and
comprehensive school reform efforts provide effective alternatives to
passing our problems off on private schools.
Our federal responsibility in education is to support States and
local school districts in their efforts to make better public schools
and better learners. It is not an acceptable solution to engage in
misguided social engineering in the District by draining funds that
would be used to improve the public schools. The Democrats of this
House have a plan, a good plan that raises the prospects for all of
America's public school children, not just a select few at the expense
of all the rest.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). All time for debate has
expired.
The Senate bill is considered read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 413, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.
Motion To Commit Offered By Ms. Norton
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to commit the Senate bill
to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the Senate
bill?
Ms. NORTON. Yes, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Norton moves to commit the bill S. 1502 to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
commit.
[[Page H2670]]
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of
rule XV, the Chair announces that she will reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if
ordered, will be taken on the question of passage of the Senate bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198,
noes 224, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 118]
AYES--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--224
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bateman
Bunning
Dixon
Gonzalez
Kennelly
McHugh
Meek (FL)
Parker
Sandlin
Smith (MI)
Young (AK)
{time} 1453
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut for, with Mr. Young of
Arkansas against.
Mr. Meeks of New York for, with Mr. Smith of Michigan
against.
Mrs. CHENOWETH changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. VENTO and Mr. ANDREWS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the
passage of the Senate bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 206, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 119]
AYES--214
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
[[Page H2671]]
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--12
Bateman
Boehner
Brown (CA)
Bunning
Dixon
Gonzalez
Hall (TX)
Kennelly
Meek (FL)
Parker
Sandlin
Smith (MI)
{time} 1504
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Bunning for, with Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut against.
Mr. Smith of Michigan for, with Mr. Meeks of New York
against.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________