[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.

                          ____________________