[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 121 (Friday, September 5, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7955-H7993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 25, 2003, and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2765.
{time} 0955
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2765) making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bass in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 25,
2003, the bill is considered as having been read the first time.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2004 District of Columbia
Appropriations bill totals $7.9 billion. Included in this total are
$466 million for Federal payments to various District programs and
projects, which I will describe shortly; $1.8 billion in Federal grants
to District agencies; and $5.6 billion in local funds for operating
expenses and capital outlays of the District government.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, is a product of the hard work of every
member of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. It is the
culmination of several weeks of hearings, visits to local schools and
other city institutions, and meetings with elected city officials and
numerous others who have a keen interest in helping the District. I
want to thank each of them for their interest in the District and their
input into this bill. I especially want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), my ranking member, for his advice, counsel
and support. He has been a pleasure to work with.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill reflects Congress' commitment to
helping our Nation's capital. This is where we all work and many of us
live, our home away from home. So we have special reasons to help our
capital city.
How grateful I am to so many of my colleagues for their ongoing
efforts, prior to my chairmanship, to assist the citizens of this great
city, especially its school children to have better lives, and many
thanks, as well, to a number of my colleagues who now seek support for
a number of new projects to further help the citizens in this budget.
When I became chairman, I wanted to get to better know this city. I
did this by listening and learning, visiting children in their schools
and touring the many neighborhoods that make up the city. I want to
thank Mayor Anthony Williams, Council Chairman Linda Cropp, and School
Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz for the support and advice they
have given me.
The Constitution, Mr. Chairman, gives Congress exclusive legislative
authority over the affairs of the District, and I take this mandate
seriously. The District is in a stronger financial position today than
a few years ago. Much of this is due to Mayor Williams and the city
council, but we cannot overlook the role Congress has played in the
financial recovery as well.
{time} 1000
The District still has a long way to go to resolve many personnel and
management problems, but I believe that progress is being made. I stand
ready to help in any way I can.
Mr. Chairman, the committee has carefully reviewed the District's
budget request and, as reflected in the bill, has given the Mayor and
City Council's priorities the highest consideration when putting this
bill together.
As I mentioned earlier, the bill totals $7.9 billion of which $466
million are Federal payments to various programs and projects. This is
$43 million below last year's allocation and equates to an 8.4 percent
reduction.
Seventy-seven percent of these funds, or $359 million, is to continue
funding of the D.C. courts, the Public Defender Service, the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency, CSSOSA. These are District
functions that the Federal Government assumed financial responsibility
for in the National Capital Revitalization and Self-government
Improvement Act of 1997.
The remaining 23 percent, or $107 million, are for programs and
projects that directly benefit the District. These include: $17 million
for the tuition assistance program for the District for college-bound
District students; $15 million to reimburse the District for added
emergency planning and security costs related to the presence of the
Federal Government in the District; $10 million for a D.C. scholarship
program; $42.7 million for capital development projects in the
District; dollars for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative; and dollars
for public school facility improvements.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that the President's request
for a school choice program in the District of Columbia, which would
provide D.C. school scholarships, has stirred up considerable
controversy. Personally, I have supported such scholarships for the
District since they were first proposed in 1995 by Members of Congress.
There is excitement that surrounds the very successful charter
movement in this city. There are 37 charter schools and 11 more on the
drawing boards, more than any other city in the Nation. We have charter
schools in this city.
[[Page H7956]]
That excitement is also apparent in those parents who strongly
advocate for this new educational choice option for their children.
While we are all supportive of the District public school system and
the success of the city's charter school movement, many more children
can be helped by this new program.
The statistics in the U.S. Department of Education on District
student performance on reading, writing, math and other core academic
studies are very disturbing. The bottom line is that children in this
city will be helped by giving parents more choices for educating their
children. Many parents are hopeful that we will act. That is why I am
happy that later today we will have an amendment to provide for the
authorization of the funding I have included in this bill.
There will be much debate on this issue. And one of the arguments the
opposing side will make is that this bill does not provide funding for
what is called the three-pronged approach to education which the
District leadership wants. While that is true, it is not my intention
that this be the case when we come out of conference with the Senate.
Due to the fiscal constraints of this bill, we were only able to
provide for the D.C. scholarships; but the Senate bill includes
additional funding for both public and charter schools as well.
I support the Mayor's approach and will work with Chairman Young
towards a conference allocation that is sufficient to address all three
sectors of education in the city.
The timing of this bill, Mr. Chairman, is always of concern to the
District, and rightly so, because the city's local funds cannot be
spent until we pass the conference report for the bill. I am mindful of
these concerns and will do everything within my power to get the
District its funds in a timely manner.
In summary, the fiscal year 2000 District of Columbia appropriations
bill is fiscally responsible, a balanced bill that deserves bipartisan
support.
Lastly, I would like to thank the subcommittee staff, our excellent
clerk Carol Murphy, Rob Nabors who works so well with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and certainly with this chair, and Kelly
Wade of my staff for their diligent and professional work on this bill.
I would also like to thank Nancy Fox from my immediate staff and
William Miles from the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Fattah) staff
for their hard work as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and let me start by thanking the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). This chairman, I think
in the ways most remembered of Julian Dixon, has taken the helm and
worked hard, been sensitive to the issues arising here in the capital
city. He has been out and about visiting and visibly showing the
concern of the Congress for the plight of the city's neighborhoods. I
think he most appropriately understands and appreciates the work that
the city's leadership, the Mayor and the council and its delegate, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), have done to
rescue the city from its fiscal constraints from years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I worked with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis) in creating the financial control board, which was modeled after
the PICA Board that we instituted in Philadelphia that I sponsored in
the legislature then, and it has worked well here in the District. The
district is now on its own and has done a tremendous job in righting
the ship.
The chairman understands and appreciates the superb leadership that
superintendent Paul Vance has brought to the school district and the
board of education here in Washington, D.C., and I just want to thank
the chairman, thank his staff, particularly Carol Murphy, who has
shepherded at the helm the work of the majority staff, and I would also
like to thank Rob Nabors on the Democratic appropriations staff and
William Miles from my personal staff that have worked on D.C.-related
matters.
We come here today with a bill in which there will be a lot of
attention on what we disagree on, and we disagree on one item, that of
vouchers; but I do not want that to overshadow the fact that this bill,
absent that one disagreement, is a very significant accomplishment and
it is owed solely to the leadership of the chairman and his capable
political skills and bringing to a consensus how we should address a
whole host of issues affecting our capital city.
This is, I think without disagreement, in the world's only remaining
superpower, the wealthiest country in the world, this is our capital
city, and it is a symbol in every important way to world visitors,
foreign leaders, and to those who look upon this Nation as to where our
priorities are. So it is important work that the Congress does. And as
we seek to promote democracy in other places, I know that we hope one
day here in the District that American citizens who pay taxes and who
are dying on foreign battlefields will have democracy here in the
District and be able to have on the floor of this House not just a
voice but a vote.
Mr. Chairman, today I commend the chairman for this bill. I think it
addresses the critical issues in important ways. He has fought for an
allocation that some may have some issues with, but it is
representative of approaching what we need to address the District's
problems; and I thank him and his staff for their work.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can enter into the general debate and move
through this bill, have a passionate discussion about the question of
vouchers but not overlook the fact that we have broad agreement here on
the direction of what our fiscal responsibilities are to the District
of Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the vice chairman of
the committee and, in fact, a long-time member of the committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, this committee used to be a drudgery. If you asked
somebody to serve on the D.C. committee, you had to pull them out from
under the bed to get them to come to work. I would say that thanks to
the ranking member, the chairman, and the work that the committee has
done over the past few years, it has gotten to be one of the better
committees.
I think if one looks at what has been done in a bipartisan way, and,
yes, we do have some differences, but in a bipartisan way, with the
help of a Mayor that is business-oriented, Mayor Williams, who I think
has done a good job, I think we can be proud of the committee and the
output of this, with a couple of exceptions.
I have volunteered to stay on the committee all these years I have
been in Congress because I have an education background and I had
several goals. One was to help the education system in Washington
because it had some of the highest cost and lowest productivity. Any
Member that would go out into the city will find some very dedicated,
very good teachers in Washington, D.C. I know the ranking member and
the chairman have both gone out into the community, as I have, and
visited some of these schools. You would be amazed at the differences
since the committee has started to work.
The Mayor has gone through a pretty tough bureaucracy; and like all
bureaucracies, sometimes you cannot get the things done that you want
even though you are the leader of a city. So I laud the Mayor for the
work that he has done. Even though in some cases very slow, he has
plodded through it. He has kept true to his word. He communicates, and
I thank Mayor Williams for that.
Another area was the waterfront. But there was a whole area in which
pilings had been left from the 1940s that were corroding into the
Potomac River. The Anacostia River had the highest fecal count of any
river in the United States. It was not just pollution that was killing
the fish. There is such a high fecal count because every time it rains
that raw sewage goes into the Anacostia River. Fish were dying because
of the bacteria. There was so much bacteria it ate the oxygen and the
fish suffocated. That is how bad it was. We still need a
[[Page H7957]]
national program to help the Washington, D.C. sewage system. Without
it, we will not clean up our rivers, and it will be a health hazard to
Washington, D.C.; and I look forward to working with my colleagues on
doing that as well.
If my colleagues will go down now they will see a marina in progress.
Half of it is done, and the other half, all the pilings that were
leaching creosote into the water, are gone and the new docks are coming
in. Guess what? That is revenue to the city because that is leased
land. Instead of being a drain, instead of being a deficit, it will be
a revenue producer for the city.
My goal is to make the waterfront like a San Diego, where I live, or
a San Francisco wharf and waterfront where people can go down with
their families and enjoy the waterfront and water that is clean instead
of polluted like it even still is today. And again I want to thank the
ranking member.
We differ a little bit on economic scholarships. I personally think
my colleagues would be surprised that, yes, I support vouchers, as some
call them, or economic scholarships, whatever you want to call them.
But I only support them if the community wants them. I do not think the
Federal Government should mandate it. The community must itself want
them, because in some areas there may be transportation costs far
exceeding the cost of moving a child to another area. There may be a
certain school that, a private school, that does not take IDEA
children. And those costs may be apples and oranges.
In many areas across the country vouchers do work. In my opinion,
Washington, D.C. is a classic. I know the gentlewoman opposes it, but
the Mayor supports it, the city supports it; and I think the people
that in some cases where their children are trapped, where a mother of
a child that wants to learn is out there and wants to get out of the
quagmire that they live in but yet are trapped in a school that does
not produce, they deserve the opportunity. The first goal is to bring
that school up to level, I agree, with public education. But in the
meantime, let us not let that child get left behind. Let us work with
that child.
I think my colleagues know my heart is in the right place, even
though they may disagree with me on the issue. But I think it will be a
good program.
Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank the ranking member and the
chairman and the members on the committee. It is starting to be a very
good pleasure to work with this committee.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the gentleman from California for his comments and his work on
the committee, and indeed it is because of the leadership that he has
brought that a great deal of progress has happened in terms of the
waterfront.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
{time} 1015
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Mayor Williams did another thing. The
highest incidence for prostate cancer is among African Americans, and
the highest incidence in the United States is in Washington, D.C. The
mayor worked with our committee and chairman and ranking member, and on
a sleet, rain-driven night, we packed the house in a town hall meeting
on prostate cancer for African Americans because it had never been done
before. The mayor has agreed to do another meeting, and we plan on
doing that.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, it is well known that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham), unlike many other Members, has sought
and stayed on this committee and has made a real contribution at the
waterfront, and I am aware of his efforts in terms of this particular
type of cancer.
I would tell him in terms of the sewer system and the infrastructure
in the District of Columbia, there are tremendous needs. I understand
the President will be down soon with a $13 billion request to rebuild
the sewer system in Iraq with taxpayer money. Maybe there might be a
few pennies left that we can do something more to help in our own
capital city; but Members should not hold their breath because I am
sure we will be told there is not enough money to address these
domestic concerns.
The question of vouchers is an important one, and I am going to yield
to the Member who has the most to say about this. As the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham) said, really there is not a lot of
disagreement because if somebody wants this, it should not be outlawed.
But the question here in the District of Columbia was there was a
referendum. The voters have spoken. They do not want vouchers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to address the bill and any particular
concerns the gentlewoman wants to beyond that.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) who
has worked in such a bipartisan fashion with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) on this appropriation. I want to thank them
both for their bipartisanship, bipartisanship without compromising
their principles, but also for their sensitivity to home rule and the
fact that this is an independent jurisdiction that ought to be able to
speak up for itself the way jurisdictions of every Member of this House
can.
I am proud how far our city has come under the leadership of Mayor
Williams and City Council Chairwoman Linda Cropp and our city council.
We have come a very long way from insolvency to a city now that is in
better shape than most jurisdictions in the United States because of
the prudence of our local leadership.
I want to talk about what this bill is about because this is not our
usual D.C. appropriation where I would normally thank the President for
funding my tuition access bill, and let me do it anyway, probably the
most popular legislation in the District of Columbia because it allows
young people to go to any State-supported institution anywhere in the
United States; but nobody will remember the D.C. appropriation 2003 for
anything but one issue. Members simply have to concentrate on what they
are voting on.
This is a bill with a vouchers-only provision. We will hear promises
about maybe in the Senate they will have some money. That bill is in
huge trouble in the Senate, and of course some money has been put in
for public funding when there was an uproar in the city about funding
vouchers, and then the pro-voucher officials came forward and said wait
a minute, we have a three-sector approach, and we will get some money
for the public schools, too.
But everybody understands the public money is a cover for vouchers.
It is a way to take the sting out of vouchers. This is one of the most
anti-voucher jurisdictions in the United States of America. They have
tried it here for 20 years, and this is a jurisdiction which sent me,
their Congresswoman, time and again, back here to ask Members to veto
their appropriation to keep vouchers from being attached to it until
President Clinton could somehow negotiate them off.
So the people of the District of Columbia have not turned around on a
dime and flip-flopped and said we want vouchers. All Members need to do
is sit in my office and they will know where they stand, because the
elected officials, the majority of the elected officials of the school
board, the majority of the city council, have written to you to say we
do not want vouchers.
What is important for every Member to know and to understand is that
this is not only a vouchers-only bill so that is what Members are going
to be voting on, but this will be the first time in the United States
of America that the Congress of the United States has sent money to
private schools, something that huge numbers of Members on the other
side of the aisle have crossed to this side of the aisle to vote with
us to say we will never do.
There is a reason people do not do it. They do not do it in part
because two-thirds of the American people oppose vouchers, if we want
to get down to particulars. But this year is the last time we would
want them to do it because this is the year when if Members went home
for recess, Members heard a bipartisan backlash against a bipartisan
bill, the No Child Left Behind bill, because people are now beginning
to pay the unfunded mandate for No Child Left Behind, and now Members
[[Page H7958]]
are going to vote to send money to private schools with that $9 billion
unfunded mandate.
Schools are in the worst crisis that they have been in our country
since World War II, the worst funding crisis, according to all of the
data coming forward. What do Members have in your own districts on CNN
and everywhere else? Slick, expensive ads, national TV, the opening
salvo to a new nationwide drive for vouchers in every district, just as
that well-funded set of forces have wanted to do for some time.
If Members pass this bill, if Members vote for vouchers, they will
send a signal to every private school in the country, every
organization of private schools, to every organization of religious
schools, that this is the time to bring pressure to get the same kind
of private school deal that the District of Columbia got, and Members
can expect the same slick ads right in their district.
Mr. Chairman, many Members have heard from our mayor. He is my good
friend, and will continue to be my good friend, even on an issue like
this. We will continue to work closely on the issues affecting our
city. He has pressed this Congress, but he has not successfully pressed
the elected officials of the District of Columbia or the people of the
District of Columbia.
We have the letter from the council chair and Members have the letter
from the parents' association. Perhaps Members saw the hundreds of D.C.
residents, led by ministers and rabbis who fanned out all over this
Congress on Wednesday to say do not do vouchers in this city. We are
not to be your pilot. Do not experiment in the District of Columbia,
experiment in your own States. The city has a situation here which is
not cost free. We are undergoing $40 million in cuts, another $25
million will go out if 2,000 students exit if the schools are funded on
a per-pupil basis. D.C. has a $50 million unfunded No Child Left Behind
mandate right now. All of our elected officials should be down here
trying to get that money the way Members of Congress have.
The District of Columbia wants Congress to respect their
alternatives. We are ahead of virtually every district in this Congress
on alternatives. We have our own charter schools, the largest number in
the United States per capita. They have long waiting lists. Those are
the chosen options of our people by our people. We have 15
transformation schools for the poorest children in the District of
Columbia, the first breakthrough in Stanford 9 scores in the history of
the city. That breakthrough will no longer occur unless the funding
that the city has put in continues. And then, of course, a child in the
District of Columbia can go out of boundaries; something that Members'
districts have yet to do or have finally been mandated to do, we have
been doing for decades.
Members do not want vouchers in their districts. They have been voted
down on the floor. I represent this District of Columbia. I am here to
tell Members you do not want them in your district, and we do not want
them in our district. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it
is not because a huge majority, almost two-thirds of the American
people, oppose vouchers; and why would Members think it would be any
different in the District of Columbia? It is no different.
Mr. Chairman, Members should not forget where their constituents
stand when they cast their vote today. I certainly have not forgotten
where mine stand.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a valued member of the Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I want to commend the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for his hard work in support of the city,
and I particularly want to commend him for caring. I have enjoyed
working with him over the past year, and I have been able to clearly
discern that he is very interested in improving the city. It is
America's city. I think we all have a vested interest in making sure
that we make Washington, D.C. a better, healthier place to live,
better, healthier place to educate their kids.
I want to address the school choice issue that we are going to be
debating in more detail later, just to make one very, very important
point. I really want to commend the chairman and, as well, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their hard work. One of the
things that has always bothered me is that wealthy people in America
have school choice, but poor people do not. Many of those families in
poor neighborhoods cannot afford a private option. Unfortunately, many
of those types of situations are in the District of Columbia.
I have wanted for years to be able to seriously look at this issue,
go into some of the poor neighborhoods in America, give the parents the
option. And really when we have a marketplace, when parents have an
option, I think quality improves. We know that in the consumer sector
with consumer goods, it is good to have companies competing with each
other. I think the reason higher education in America is the best in
the world, our colleges and universities, is because there is a real
marketplace. We can send our kids to any college. And the hope with the
public schools and school choice is that the public schools will rise
with the other schools when they have to compete for students, but we
need to get good data.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) have crafted some very good language
that will help us look at this issue. I think it is very, very
appropriate, and I want to address one very important thing. We are
going to hear this over and over again. This pilot, this $10 million
study that we are trying to do, is going to take money away from public
schools, that it is going to take money away from public education.
The budget for the District of Columbia is $1.1 billion to educate
their kids, and this money is a plus-up. If this amendment is defeated,
they are not going to get the extra money. The real debate is not
taking money away from public schools. I have been hearing that on the
radio. We are not taking money away from public schools. We are putting
an extra, actually from the Labor-HHS allotment, we are taking money
from that committee and moving it over here so we can once and for all
try to study this issue.
Despite what I think are very good intentions, and if school choice
is so bad, like so many people on the left keep claiming, let us
discover that.
I think the opposition to this issue has nothing to do with the
arguments being put forward. It is about power and who controls where
your kids are going to school. If this study shows that it works, if
parents like it better, academic performance improves, these are all of
the parameters the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) are going to be following, along with
the Secretary of Education is going to be following. If it actually
shows that it works and it is good for the District of Columbia, it is
good for the kids, it is going to erode the power of one of the most
powerful groups in this country, and that is the teachers union, and
that is the opposition to this.
{time} 1030
To say this is going to move money from public education, if this
gets killed, you do not get the money. That is really what it boils
down to. We need to study this issue because kids are failing and they
are failing unnecessarily and we need to do more for them.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to make a couple of points. One is that it is true that the
mayor has come out in favor of this approach, assuming that there would
be dollars for our public schools and charter schools, in what we now
call the three-prong approach. The three-prong approach is not what is
before us at all, and I sincerely believe the chairman when he says
that we hope in conference that we can address that. But the vote
before us today is to do nothing additional for public schools, nothing
additional for charter schools and solely and singularly take dollars
and to provide them to private institutions.
I personally think that private school choice is wonderful and if
people want to make private choices, I think they should pay for them
privately. This is a public enterprise and we have
[[Page H7959]]
to make public choices. If we have got 70,000 children in a school
system that lacks fully-qualified teachers, we should take every penny
we can find and get them fully-qualified teachers; that if they lack
libraries, we should get them libraries, and so forth and so on. We
know what we need to make public schools work. They work right outside
of the District of Columbia today, in Fairfax County, in Alexandria.
They work. You put quality teachers in the classroom, you put a limited
class size, you give them updated textbooks, and kids learn. Why do we
not do that in the District? Why do we not give to them what we provide
to other children rather than give them some unproven, newfangled idea
that nobody has any indication will work?
The gentleman who just spoke, my colleague from Florida, Florida just
had an embarrassment where they had vouchers going to some outfit who,
it is at least alleged, was involved in terrorism activity. When you
have these uncontrolled, unregulated vouchers, you can have everything
from the David Duke Academy getting dollars to anything that anybody
else can dream up.
We need to be careful as we go forward because all we are looking
forward to here is for some kind of embarrassment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes, even though I only promised him 2\1/
2\, to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my good friend from
Pennsylvania for yielding me this time and his generosity.
In my congressional district, the Third District of Maryland, I
represent 110 District of Columbia residents. They live at the Oak Hill
detention center, a maximum security campus in Laurel, Maryland,
approximately 30 miles from Washington. It is located on more than 600
acres of Federal land adjacent to the National Security Agency. The
facility was originally constructed 50 years ago. Few renovations have
been made since then, and the campus is now in a severe state of
neglect and disrepair, littered with partially-boarded abandoned
buildings that are frequently broken into and set afire. Roughly half
the children at Oak Hill have been convicted of crimes and sentenced to
a term there, and the other half are detainees awaiting trial. Their
average length of stay is more than 8 months.
A 2001 mayoral commission recommended closing Oak Hill and placing
youth offenders in a network of residential treatment facilities,
community-based group homes and other less restrictive settings. I
support the commission's recommendations, including the closing of Oak
Hill. Some progress has been made toward that goal, including beginning
construction of a pretrial holding facility in northeast Washington
that should reduce by 50 percent the number of children housed at Oak
Hill.
July's four-part series in the Washington Post documented a near
complete breakdown of the community-based rehabilitative care system
that now exists for the District's youth offenders. The District needs
to develop an appropriate community-based system for its juvenile
offenders.
In addition, because the District of Columbia has only one
residential treatment center which is plagued by alleged physical and
sexual abuse, the city must send many of its children to lengthy stays
out of State. Currently 400 District children are in residential
treatment centers, some as far away as Arizona, at a conservative cost
of $25 million a year.
Mayor Williams recently acknowledged that his juvenile justice system
is in a state of serious dysfunction and has pledged to take corrective
measures. But he was also quoted as saying, ``There hasn't been an
embrace, at the agency level, of the issue. There hasn't been the sense
of urgency.'' I would tell the mayor that there is a sense of urgency
for both the District of Columbia and in my district in Maryland.
I recently had the opportunity to meet with the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and Deputy Mayor Carolyn Graham, and
I subsequently visited Oak Hill. There I met with youth services
administrator Gayle Turner and her staff and I toured the facility and
surrounding grounds. I was impressed by the progress we were making. As
a result of our initial discussions, they were moving in the right
direction: toward razing the dilapidated structures that are beyond
rehabilitation and toward developing proposals to make more cost-
effective and more appropriate use of the land. That is why I was
disappointed that both of the individuals I met with positions were
terminated and no longer are there.
Today's debate is about funding the District of Columbia, but this
issue involves more than appropriate funding levels. This is about the
best course of treatment of these children, the best way to ensure the
safety of our communities and the most appropriate use of Federal land.
Mr. Chairman, as the representative of the community surrounding Oak
Hill, I look forward to working to help improve the state of juvenile
justice services for the District of Columbia. I might also point out
that the Federal land on which Oak Hill is located is a prime site for
expansion of NSA and for the State of Maryland and Anne Arundel County
to develop environmental, recreational and economic opportunities.
I hope to continue working with the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton), with the members of the Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia, and with Mayor Williams and the city council to
develop the right solutions for all involved.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that Mayor
Anthony Williams, the chief elected officer, the mayor of this city,
supports this choice option.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform, who I have had the pleasure of working with and who is the
architect of this D.C. parental school choice initiative in his bill.
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have a lengthy statement
talking about generally what is in this bill, really basically praising
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for putting together a very good bill.
I would like to address briefly, though, the Davis amendment that
will be coming up before this body a little bit later. I will submit
for the Record a Washington Post editorial written by Tony Williams,
the elected mayor of the city; Kevin Chavous, elected council member
and chairman of the District's education committee; and Peggy Cooper
Cafritz, the elected chairman of the school board, all supporting my
amendment and the school voucher program. I will also submit for the
Record a May 12, 2003, editorial from the Washington Post which sets
the record straight on the history of school vouchers in Washington.
Let me just say, the idea that this is an anti-voucher city is
something we need to contend with. The vote in 1981 was not on a school
voucher program like we have here. It was on tuition tax credits that
one could argue hurt the District budget. I think we have solved that
here by bringing additional money in, and more money will be coming
into the city that would not otherwise come in as a result of the
appropriations process I think at the end of this.
So that was a completely different proposal. That vote was in 1981.
The Washington Post, a newspaper of some renown in this town, ran a
poll in May of 1998 that asked, do you favor or oppose using Federal
money in the form of vouchers to help low-income students in the
District go to private or parochial schools? In that poll, 56 percent
of city residents said they favored the idea. If that is the idea of
anti-voucher, I think that we are being misled. City opinion is split
on this, but the elected mayor and the elected chairman of the school
board have come to us, they are in charge of this, they are entrusted
by the voters to focus on this particular issue, and they have said
that they need this to help D.C. schoolchildren get the same level of
opportunity that the rest of us have for kids in our districts.
Over the years I have worked hard to try to bring this city back. I
have worked with my friend, the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia
[[Page H7960]]
(Ms. Norton), on a number of issues and we have had a number of
successes. We have sponsored legislation to bring the city back to
financial stability. We sponsored legislation to help the city overcome
its unfunded pension liability, a major issue that people said could
not be done. We have worked in assisting the economic recovery of this
city with tax relief and regulatory relief for our Nation's capital. We
have worked together on the D.C. College Access Act which makes college
affordable to the District population that basically was discouraged
from going because they had no State university system like the rest of
us do in our States. I think all of these have helped. But the most
difficult problem facing this city is its public school system.
I respect my colleagues who oppose this amendment. They argue that
public dollars should be reserved for public schools only. I think
philosophically I believe the same thing, but I think they are
misguided in this instance when they put the preservation of the
institution, a failed institution, ahead of the opportunities for
children that could be advanced by this. Ultimately our responsibility
is to the kids, not to an institution, not to a failed, dysfunctioning
bureaucracy.
What has it produced over the years? They say that we are going to
put more money into public schools. We have put more money into public
schools. It still has one of the highest dropout rates in the Nation.
It has some of the lowest test scores in the Nation. The average SAT
throughout the city, combined verbal and math, is under 800. It is a
failure. Its school lunch program was just rated by the Physicians
Committee on Responsibility and was given an F. They cannot even feed
the kids in the public school system. Yet they say, no, that is where
we want to send them, that is where they have to go. We are talking
about kids whose parents cannot move to the suburbs. They cannot move
to Ward 3. They are trapped in an area, in a monopoly system that is
not even giving them a decent school lunch. By the way, that same
system rated my county a B on its school lunch, rated the city of
Detroit an A-minus, but the city of Washington gets an F on its school
lunch program.
It is a system that has produced a disproportionate number of rapes,
of assaults and robberies to kids in the public school system. Yet they
say we want them to go to that school, a public school system, that we
will just add more money, which we have done. Over $2,000 a year more
is paid on a kid's education in the city than is paid in my county of
Fairfax. If money were the answer, we would put money at it and solve
the problem. But it is a failed institution. You cannot put, to quote
biblically, new wine into old bottles. This is an old bottle and it
needs fixing. It is a system that last week was found to have paid
$59,000 to a phantom company that does not even exist.
For opponents of this amendment who say more money, it is the same
old, same old, same old. If you do the same thing time and time again,
you are going to get the same results. President Bush has talked about
the soft bigotry of low expectations. We are trying to change that.
These kids deserve every bit the opportunity that my kids have. The
proof in the pudding here is that no Member of the House to my
knowledge has sent their kids to the D.C. public school system in the
last decade. The President and the Vice President, living here and
given that opportunity to pick any school in the city, chose private
schools.
We just want to give the same opportunities to the poorest of the
poor. This legislation restricts it to kids from nonperforming schools,
low-income. This is going to be, I think, a shock treatment to the
public education system. Five years from now I hope we will not need
this, I hope the public education will improve, but it is not going to
improve without this kind of shock treatment. I urge my colleagues to
support the Davis amendment.
[From the Washington Post, May 12, 2003]
Straight Talk on Vouchers
In making her case against a federally funded school
voucher pilot program, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) has
repeatedly said that D.C. voters are firmly opposed to the
idea. Thus, she argues, to support vouchers is to oppose home
rule. As the basis for her declaration, Ms. Norton cites the
results of an exit poll conducted in November for the
National School Boards Association. The poll, which she
supplied to this page, showed that 76 percent of the 603
voters interviewed opposed school vouchers. But as is true of
so much that stirs up this city, Ms. Norton's poll is hardly
gospel.
Let's look at the wording of the question posed in the
poll. It asked: ``Do you favor or oppose giving taxpayer-
funded vouchers to parents to pay for their children to
attend private schools even if that means less money for
public school students?'' Note the phrase ``even if that
means less money for public school students.'' That's a
loaded question if there ever was one. What majority would
favor that? It would be just as unfair if voucher supporters
sponsored a poll that asked, ``Do you favor or oppose giving
taxpayer-funded vouchers to parents to pay for their children
to attend private schools if that enables them to transfer
out of an inferior public school with low test scores?''
Imagine the responses to that question.
There is a less prejudicial way to measure public sentiment
on the school voucher question. The Post conducted a poll
based on random interviews with 1,002 D.C. adults in May 1998
that asked the following: ``Do you favor or oppose using
federal money in the form of vouchers to help send low-income
students in the District to private or parochial school?'' In
that poll, 56 percent of city residents said they favored the
idea, compared with 36 percent who opposed vouchers and 8
percent who had no opinion. Ms. Norton may be aware of that
poll as well, since the results and story were published on
May 23, 1998.
The Post's findings are consistent with the results of a
National Opinion Poll on education conducted with 1,678
adults in May 1999 for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Joint
Center for Political and Economic Studies. The center
researches and analyzes issues of concern to African
Americans and other minorities. The center's poll found that
``support for school vouchers among African Americans, which
has fluctuated in past Joint Center polls, grew by 25 percent
since 1998 with 60 percent of African American respondents
favoring school vouchers.'' But beyond polls is the question
of actual demand for school choice. Not only are parents
expressing their strong desire for alternatives, as the
popularity of public charter schools attests, but private
associations that provide scholarship assistance to D.C.
students seeking enrollment in private or parochial schools
also report strong requests for help from D.C. parents.
Shouting that support for vouchers doesn't exist in the
District won't make it so. Neither will over-the-top rhetoric
and personal invective that add little substance to the
debate.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just make a couple of comments. A basic understanding of how
the city government operates is that the mayor is the executive. City
policy is designed by a consensus between the council and a majority
and the executive through statute. There is nothing that prevents the
D.C. Government at any time from instituting a voucher program if it
wants to. There does not exist a political consensus in the District;
that is, the legislative body, which we should have great sympathy for
as we are a legislative body, does not agree with this policy. So to
say, well, you have got the city's support because you have the mayor,
ask us if you have the full support of the city government when you
actually do not.
It is important that as we say that we come with great concern about
the plight of the children in the District and that we want them to
have the same opportunity that our children have, let us give them the
same opportunity that the constituents of the gentleman from Virginia
have. That is, they have quality schools with fully-qualified,
credentialed teachers. Let us take these dollars and provide that here
in the District. They have schools that have updated curriculums and
adequate libraries and school counselors for all of the children who
are presented to the schoolhouse door, not taking a few children,
siphoning them off and helping them, and forsaking the rest to a
District that by his own statement is not living up to what we would
hope it would live up to.
{time} 1045
So this question of diverting public dollars for a private school and
schools is a very important one about what we really believe. If we
want to truly help these children, let us do for them what we are doing
for other children, and that is provide quality public schools in the
District of Columbia so that these children and future generations of
them can benefit because we already know that that works. It works
right in the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Tom Davis) district. It
works today. Vouchers have not been proven to work anywhere in the
country, and why experiment on the future life chances of these
children here in the District?
[[Page H7961]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to the
provision in the District of Columbia appropriation bill authorizing
$10 million in funding for school vouchers.
Having worked as an elementary school teacher, a school psychologist,
and having served on a school board of the largest school district in
the State of California, I have seen firsthand the need to strengthen
standards in our public schools and to demand more from our teachers
and our students through better accountability and adequate resources.
However, voucher programs that divert precious funding away from the
public school system, and particularly here in D.C., would do exactly
the opposite.
First, vouchers lack accountability. Private schools funded by
vouchers are not subjected to the same standards established by the
Leave No Child Behind Act.
Second, vouchers can discriminate. Private schools have the ultimate
say in deciding which students they want to enroll, and they can screen
out applicants based on any factor without obeying Federal
antidiscrimination laws. The children that need to be focused on are
not going to be admitted in these private schools. Trust me when I say
that.
Finally, vouchers simply do not have a proven record of success.
There is no discernible difference in achievement between students and
voucher programs and students in public education program. Every time
vouchers have appeared on the California ballot, they have been voted
down. Senator Feinstein's support of this provision is not reflective
of the will of the people in California in this regard.
So how else could we use this $10 million? We could use it to improve
the public schools which are already facing a $40 million budget cut.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to say for the record that the dollars for this new
choice program will be given to the parents so that they can make the
choice. They will not be given to the school. And secondly, I need to
reiterate this is new money. This is money that came from the gentleman
from Ohio's (Mr. Regula) mark. It is not being taken away from the
public schools or from the charter schools.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee for yielding me this time and commend him for his
leadership not just on the issue of education for students in the
District of Columbia, but for all the aspects of this bill that benefit
the District of Columbia, our Nation's capital.
I do not think we should overlook the good parts of this bill and the
dedication that has been placed on making this bill very responsive to
the needs of the District of Columbia, over and above the issue of
education for the students here.
I also want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah)
who has been I know a strong leader on advocacy for the District of
Columbia, and the team of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) have
been responsible in trying to address the needs of this District, this
Nation's capital, this jewel of a city that we want all of this country
to be so proud of.
I want to reiterate the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr.
Frelinghuysen) comment about the $10 million in this bill for vouchers.
Why in the world would we not want to use this new money for an
education purpose that the mayor and otherwise people feel is
appropriate for these children? And why would we say, let us not have
that $10 million go to kids? It will be lost if it is not used for this
purpose. So I would argue that this is a responsible course for this
committee, this Congress, to take, to use this $10 million, to give
these kids a chance. It is not all the thousands of children who need
the money, but it certainly is going to help parents and children who
are in need in this educational environment in which we find ourselves.
As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who is such a strong
leader on advocacy for the District of Columbia and good government has
stated, this is an effort that the City wants, I would argue, that the
mayor wants, and he is taking a very difficult, but responsible,
position to help the kids of this District.
So my comments are really to commend the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Frelinghuysen) for his dedication as the new chairman to this
bill, to this City, to the needs of this City, and also to commend his
partner in this effort, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah),
who is also dedicated and committed to trying to do what is right for
these children. But I think we should make sure that when the day is
done, that we vote in favor of children, vote in favor of the new $10
million to go to parents and children to improve their education
capabilities and to improve their education experience here in the
District.
So I rise in support of that concept and that mission that I think we
have today to try to pass this legislation, but also pass this very
important amendment that is such a part of the gentleman from
Virginia's (Mr. Tom Davis) attention.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to enter into the Record a new story from the Florida
Naples Daily News which headlines ``Private School with Ties to
Terrorists gets State Money'' through a private tuition voucher
program.
And I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Washington
State. It is true that the mayor supports dollars for vouchers which I
disagree with. It is also true, and I think fair to say, that this is
not the proposal that the mayor supports. He supports a three-pronged
approach that is not what is going to be before us today, and I
sincerely appreciate all the work that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis) has done on behalf of the District, but this is not a
proposal that the mayor supports nor is it a proposal that the City
Council supports. So to say this has the support of the District, I
think, is really kind of twisting things slightly.
[From the Florida Naples Daily News, July 18, 2003]
Private School With Ties to Alleged Terrorist Gets State Money
Tampa.--Senate Democrats urged Gov. Jeb Bush on Thursday to
cut off payment to a school co-founded by a professor accused
of being the North American leader of a worldwide terrorist
organization.
The school received $350,000 last year through a state
program that pays private school tuition for some students.
A February grand jury indictment against Sami Al-Arian, the
alleged leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and seven
others says the school was used as a base of support for the
organization.
The indictment said the purpose of the organization was
``to assist its engagement in, and promotion of, violent
attacks designed to thwart the Middle East Peace Process.''
It said the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is responsible for 100
murders in Israel and its territories.
Al-Arian, who is being held in jail without bail and denies
any connections to terrorism, co-founded the school in 1992
and served as its director and chairman of its board.
The school's treasurer, Sameeh Hammoudeh, also was indicted
and is being held in jail without bond. He and Al-Arian
allegedly encouraged people who wanted to send money to
Palestinians to write checks to their school. The Palm Beach
Post reported in its Thursday editions.
Last year, the 300-student Islamic Academy of Florida
received more than 50 percent of its revenue from the state
program, Florida PRIDE, which uses corporate donations to pay
for poor students to attend private schools.
``The disclosures that more than $300,000 of this money
went last year to a school suspected of terrorist ties raises
the frightening specter that Florida's taxpayers may be
unwittingly funding extremist organizations intent on the
destruction of our nation and its allies,'' Senate Democratic
Leader Ron Klein and Senator Dave Aronberg wrote in their
letter to Gov. Jeb Bush.
Denise Lasher, spokeswoman for Florida PRIDE, said
officials conducted an independent audit of the school after
the indictment was released and found no misuse of funds and
no connection between the scholarship money and terrorist
activity.
She said the school received more than $300,000 in federal
grants for computers and its free- and reduced-price school
lunch program.
``It was unfortunate that there was someone at the school
accused of doing something
[[Page H7962]]
illegal, but that doesn't mean the school has done something
illegal,'' she said Thursday.
But although Florida PRIDE found that all of its
scholarship money was going to the school, Hammoudeh was paid
for his services as school treasurer, and the indictment
states that school supplies and equipment were used in the
Jihad operation. It is unknown whether Al-Arian was being
paid.
Corporations that donate to the program receive a dollar-
for-dollar tax break. The program gave out nearly $50 million
in scholarships last year.
Since the program began, large corporations such as WCI
Communities Inc., Gulf Power Co., Florida Power & Light and
Verizon Wireless have donated to the program, but how much
and to which program is not public information.
Critics of the corporate tax credit scholarship program are
concerned that there is no government oversight of the
schools that take the money. In their letter to Bush, Klein
and Aronberg called for a review of the program and of the
schools.
Under the May 2001 law, the Florida Department of Education
cannot dictate curriculum or monitor how students are
progressing academically.
But Lasher insisted the schools teachers and students and
teachers are top notch academically.
Senate President Jim King, R-Jacksonville, jokingly said in
May that he could start a school for witches under the law
and receive corporate tax credit scholarships.
``The intent of this program was to help poor kids. The
intent was never to make opportunistic entrepreneurs
wealthy,'' said King, who also ordered a study of the
program.
Despite the accountability concerns, Bush remained a
supporter, saying last week that it was a ``proven success,''
based on the students receiving the scholarships.
Ahmed Bedier, spokesman for the Muslim advocacy group
Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the Tampa school
is well respected. He noted that the University of South
Florida is also mentioned in the indictment.
But USF, where Al-Arian was a professor and Hammoudeh was
an instructor, is not listed as one of the bases of support
for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Administrators at the Islamic Academy did not return phone
calls Thursday.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rose on the floor of the House yesterday and asked my
colleagues to join me in eliminating Federal intrusion into the
decision-making of Houston, Harris County, as related to light rail. I
am very proud to say that mostly along a party-line vote, my colleagues
on this side of the aisle recognized and respected local control. My
good friends, the Republican majority, again dashed the hopes and
dreams of local communities and decided to intrude their desires on
those local communities.
Today we do the same thing. But we do so by experimenting with our
children. And I believe that this House has no place in experimenting
with the lives of the children of this Nation or of Washington, D.C. In
particular, I would have hoped that we would have focused more of our
energies on providing full funding for Leave No Child Behind. For
someone who served in local government, there is nothing more severe
than unfunded mandates, and that is what Leave No child Behind
represents.
The distinguished chairman of this subcommittee on the District of
Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations, has indicated that this is
new money. Let me say to him that why not use the new money for a good
purpose and that is to build up the public schools of D.C., to build up
the two credited chartered schools that need more resources?
Every study indicates that when we begin to use public funds for
private schools, we diminish the very heart of the education of this
Nation, and that is the equality of having good quality public schools
that all may access. Why not take the $10 million and provide the
school supplies and backpacks that many of these children need or
clothing that many of these children need?
This is a bad amendment, adding $10 million when it could be use
utilized for a more effective purpose. And might I ask to conclude, Mr.
Chairman, that the D.C. Council, the legislative body, has actively
opposed this legislation.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, could we have an audit of the time? We will
not have audits of these private schools.
The CHAIRMAN. Each side has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, in his first month, the President called
together all Members of the Congress to support a bipartisan education
bill. He said that he was willing to do two things: promise additional
funding for education of no less than $6 billion, and he was also
willing to take vouchers off the table as a part of Federal policy.
Now, we hear the Republican majority sneaking vouchers back onto the
table. They are going to reinstitute the drive of the Republican
majority to privatize education.
When the Republicans took control of the Congress, there were two
former Secretaries of Education who reported to testify at our
Committee on Education and the Workforce, Secretary Bennett and
Secretary Alexander. They wanted to abolish the Department of
Education. And because there was such a public outcry against the
abolishment of the Department of Education and against the low profile
of the Federal Government in education, Republicans decided to turn
that around and camouflage their intent. They pretend now to be
advocates of public education while guerilla warfare behind the scenes
goes on.
And what we see now is an act of sabotage where vouchers are put back
on the table at a time when education reform is already in great
trouble. We are in trouble because of the lack of funds. School
districts are shutting down early. In D.C. several years ago, schools
started late because they did not have money for school construction or
they had given money to private industry to do some construction. They
had not done it well, and they had to shut down on the basis of safety.
Private industry does not solve any problems for education. Enron shows
that private industry can get us into greater trouble.
The Republicans have returned to their agenda for long-term
privatization of education. This is the opening salvo of their new
guerilla warfare. This first strike in Washington is very serious
indeed. I do not want vouchers in New York. People do not want vouchers
in New York. That is why we have to stop vouchers right now here in
Washington.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just set the record
straight here, Mr. Chairman, because they talk about audits of time,
there will be no audits of the private schools. That is false. The
private schools that participate in this have to go through extensive
recordkeeping and comparisons and will go through more when the
Department of Education has written their regulations. So that is
false.
There are no terrorism schools that currently would be eligible for
this money as I read the legislation. So, again, that is just a red
herring put up there to try to defend the existing status quo which has
produced a failing school system that is depriving tens of thousands of
District youngsters the kinds of opportunities that children around the
rest of the country get.
I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) has an amendment
that wants to compare with Fairfax County. Let me make a point. The
District of Columbia pays more per student than they pay in Fairfax
County or Arlington. If this were a money problem, they would get the
money, but they have a school system that when given the money has not
been able to produce textbooks on time, was under court order to repair
its schools, wasted just last week $59,000 on a phantom contract to a
company that does not even exist.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say to the gentleman from Virginia that I think it gives some
example of the weakness of the proposal when we have to go to, well,
they gave some contract and it is being investigated. The Defense
Department has given out contracts that have become fraudulent.
[[Page H7963]]
{time} 1100
So I do not see us privatizing our Nation's defense because of some
malfeasance with one particular contract.
Let us not get into anecdotal situations. Let us deal with the
reality, which is the public school system is a public good. It is
important to the entire community. It is not just about educating one
child; it is about what we see as the need to promote values for the
entire community.
When you privatize public education, you create very parochial,
selfish interests. This school in Florida in which the principals have
now been indicted with these terrorist leanings, this is not some joke,
this is not some example of a red herring. This is reality, in the news
today about what has happened when the State of Florida provided public
dollars to private institutions.
There have been similar scandals in other places around the country,
and there will be, I guarantee you, because the majority will probably
have its way, when this program gets set up there will be scandals here
because of this program.
That is not what makes it bad, because some people will use it
improperly. What makes it bad is what it says about the public spirit
of our actions, which is that we would rather take 2,000 children and
siphon them off into private schools, rather than repair a school
system that can provide for 70,000 children, which really should be our
goal.
We are going to build 1,500 new schools in Iraq at the cost of
billions, but here we are scrapping on the floor of the House about $10
million for the District of Columbia, our capital city. It is a
question about what our priorities are. I would hope for the District
quality teachers, smaller class sizes, updated textbooks. That is what
I believe the solution is, not vouchers.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me again just say how
much I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fattah) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton)
on a number of other issues. We have a difference on one issue that we
will resolve today on the House floor and then we will go on, and we
will be working together on other issues tomorrow.
But this is an important issue; it is important I think to all of us.
And this is not dollars to private schools; these are dollars to
parents. Because what has happened to the District of Columbia over the
years, thousands of District residents have moved to the suburbs so
their kids could get a decent education that they could not get in the
city. Thousands of District residents send their kids to private
schools because the public schools in the city have failed them.
Not one Member of Congress, not a member of the city council,
currently has their kids in the public schools of the District of
Columbia. They are not good enough for our kids, but they are good
enough for the people who cannot afford otherwise. This is a chance to
equalize opportunity. That is all it is.
It has been requested by those poor families that came before our
committee and testified. They said, We have been waiting for years.
They said they are going to fix the system, and 9 percent of our school
children are reading proficiently in the 4th grade.
That is the problem, and that is what we are trying to fix, not
defend a system that is failing our kids.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
In closing, make no mistake about it, Mayor Williams supports what we
are doing today. The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) has
referenced the editorial in The Washington Post by Mayor Williams and
Councilman Chavous and Peggy Cooper. Let me read from it:
``For those of us involved every day in urban education, there are
staggering realities that keep us awake at night. Every child who
graduates without basic skills or drops out altogether is on a
potential pathway to public assistance, to being alienated from the
full benefits of participation in society, or, worse, to a life in the
criminal justice system.''
They go on. They say: ``We think that this is an appropriate
investment by the Federal Government in the children of the Nation's
capital. Without the resources ordinarily provided by a State, the
District is more challenged than other cities in its efforts to
adequately fund public education and foster innovative reform.
``Our children,'' they go on, ``have endured decades of neglect in
public education. But there is hope. We have a reconfigured school
board and respected superintendent.''
They say, ``Despite these underpinnings, parents still want more
choices. At town meetings, community picnics, hearings and PTA
meetings, we hear the same complaints: I cannot find the right setting
for my child, or my child is not flourishing in this environment.''
This is a good bill, Mr. Chairman. This is about parental choice, and
it is good for the students and children of the District.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my
strongest opposition to H.R. 2765, the District of Columbia
Appropriations for fiscal year 2004.
Many of you may not realize, but this legislation allows DC taxpayer
dollars to be used for domestic partner benefits. Any allocation of the
DC budget should not be used to fund domestic partner benefits. The
family unit--beginning with a marriage between one man and one woman--
has been the basic unit of every civil society since time immemorial. I
firmly believe that marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman
and the foundation for a strong, healthy family.
Studies have proven time and time again that a healthy marriage
between a man and a woman provides the fundamental support for rearing
healthy children, both mentally and physically. Despite the
overwhelming evidence of the benefits of marriage to families and
society, the sad fact is that, for over four decades, the welfare
system has penalized and discouraged marriage. Allowing domestic
partnerships means providing employment, health, or government benefits
to unmarried domestic partners. By recognizing the partnership they
will benefit from both the welfare system and tax credits, which
undermines the sanctity of marriage and government services for those
truly in need.
Although I am in opposition to the overall legislation, I urge my
colleagues to strongly support the District of Columbia Student
Opportunity Scholarship Act. Who should have the right to determine
where a child goes to school, the parents or the government? I
unconditionally believe parents have this right and are in a much
better position than a government bureaucrat to decide what is best for
a child. Public schools are government-run and supported by individuals
through their tax-dollars. Vouchers would allow parents to use their
own tax dollars to achieve the means of educating their children.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, taking money away from under-funded
public schools and diverting it into selective private schools is
fundamentally flawed.
This proposed voucher program is part of a larger initiative of the
Bush administration to privatize essential services whereever they can.
A basic problem is that the experience of privatization shows little
evidence of enhanced accountability or performance. In fact, the 10-
year Government Accounting Office study of public and privately funded
voucher programs found no evidence of test gains for children who
participated in voucher programs. Furthermore, the public when given
their choice, have repeatedly voted against vouchers and recent
national polls suggest no change in that opinion.
Our resources could be much better utilized to fulfill the
President's promises. He and the Congressional Republican Leadership
has walked away from funding No Child Left Behind leaving nearly $9
billion unfunded mandates throughout the Nation. In the District of
Columbia, No Child Left Behind has left almost $50 million in unfunded
mandates. It would be a tragedy to further short change public
education by encouraging families to leave a system that can work and,
unlike the private schools who would be favored with vouchers, our
public schools take all our children no matter how needy or troubled.
I support innovation in public schools. Reform and improvement will
happen sooner if we focus our attention and resources on our public
schools. Rather than vouchers, we should start funding the Federal
mandate of No Child Left Behind, the unmet 40 percent special education
target, and school modernization. Congress needs to stop making the
jobs of public schools harder.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this
unpatriotic and anti-democratic District of Columbia appropriations
bill
[[Page H7964]]
(H.R. 2765), and in favor of Delegate Norton's amendment to remove the
school voucher program.
As the former Chairman for the Committee for the District of
Columbia, I am disappointed that Republican Members are again carrying
out their annual assault to force their extremist right wing policies
on the District of Columbia--policies that are so extreme that they are
unable to implement them nationwide.
I would like to remind the sponsors of this bill that the citizens of
the District of Columbia do not want a school voucher program. That is
why their elected representative, Delegate Norton, is offering her
amendment to strike this program today. I guess representative
democracy is okay for the citizens of Iraq, but not for the citizens of
our Nation's capital.
School vouchers do not solve the problems confronting our public
schools. At best, private schools can only accommodate a small portion
of students' educational needs in the District of Columbia. Nor will
private schools--even with limited government financial assistance--
ever be affordable to most families. It's simple, if enacted, this
voucher program will mean fewer resources for the District's public
schools. The $10 million for vouchers today would be far better used to
improve the District of Columbia public school system, helping all
children in our Nation's capital--not just a privileged few.
The Republicans have not stopped at subverting democracy in the
District of Columbia with their school voucher program. They are also
prohibiting the city from implementing a locally approved ballot
initiative to allow the medical use of marijuana by DC residents
suffering debilitating health conditions and diseases including cancer
and HIV infection. In addition, the Republican bill maintains the
current prohibition on the use of Federal or local funds for needle
exchange programs in the District. Finally, the Republican bill
prohibits the District from using Federal or local funds for abortions,
except to save the life of the woman or in cases of rape or incest.
Like their foreign policy, the Republicans only support democracy in
this country when it suits their extremist right wing ideology. The
District of Columbia has an elected government that should be able to
determine the laws for its residents--just like every state in our
Nation determines its own laws. It is past time for Congress to respect
the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia and uphold
democratic principles that this country was built upon.
I urge my colleagues to join me--and support democracy--by voting
against the District of Columbia appropriations bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, had I been present, I would have voted
``no'' on rollcall No. 478. In fact, I am in strong opposition to the
Davis amendment.
A sound public school system is the only way we can prepare all our
children for the high skill, high wage jobs that will ensure America's
leadership in the world marketplace, and will prevent dependency on
welfare at home.
Public education is the backbone of our country, including here in
the District of Columbia. It is why we are a great Nation. Public
education is available to all. It does not discriminate, and, it must
be strengthened, not weakened. Yet, there is no doubt that this
amendment will profoundly harm DC public education. This amendment
takes precious education dollars out of DC's public schools, and gives
them to private and religious schools.
The supporters of this amendment act as if vouchers are a magic
bullet for DC education. But this amendment doesn't help teachers, or
give them more opportunities for professional development. This
amendment doesn't build new schools or repair old ones.
That is why I oppose this amendment. Instead, we should all work with
parents and educators at home, and work with each other here, to make
the DC public schools the best in the world and to make sure that every
child in DC gets a first class public education.
In addition, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on
rollcall vote No. 479. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No.
480.
Had I been present during rollcall No. 463, I would have voted
``aye''. During rollcall No. 464, I would have voted ``no''. On
rollcall No. 469, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 470,
I would have voted ``no''. During rollcall No. 471, I would have voted
``aye''. During rollcall No. 472, I would have voted ``aye''. During
rollcall No. 473, I would have voted ``no''. During rollcall No. 474, I
would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 475, I would have voted
``aye''.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2765, the
District of Columbia Appropriations for 2004. I oppose the bill because
of the Davis, Frelinghuysen/Boehner amendment that seeks to authorize a
school voucher program in the District of Columbia.
Proponents of the amendment contend that it will afford options to
parents who want to improve the quality of education that their
children will receive by providing $7,500 in funds for students to
attend private elementary or high schools in the District. The proposal
and the amendment are flawed because the District would have a program
forced upon it. The members of the city council are opposed to the
provision. The residents of the District are overwhelmingly opposed to
this measure. Furthermore, I agree with the detractors of the proposal
that the funds being proposed could be better used to fully fund public
education programs in the District.
The impetus for the amendment is based on a parochial attitude by the
authors that they know what is best for the students, families and
residents that rely on the DC public education system. This provision
undermines the principles of ``home rule''. I urge my colleagues to
support the Norton amendment to strike down this harmful and ill-
conceived provision designed to de-fund the DC school system and
undermine support for public education.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of enacting school choice programs. I watched and supported the
development of this plan in the Government Reform Committee and I am
very pleased it is before us today.
There are numerous skeptics who claim that school choice plans lack
accountability. I disagree with this notion. Each voucher will be held
by a parent or guardian who will demand that their child is
appropriately cared for and educated. Parents are the ultimate
instruments of accountability. To say that vouchers lack accountability
is an insult to parents.
Last year the National Assessment of Educational Progress reported
the results of thousands of children who took tests to find out how
much they do and do not know. From these tests we have learned that
over half of the 8th graders in the public school system in this city
do not possess basic reading skills.
A maximum voucher of $7,500 would allow children in low income homes
to no longer be trapped in deficient schools.
I would like to extend my praise to Mayor Williams, Chairmen Davis,
Boehner, and Frelinghuysen for their determination to provide better
schools even when it was not the most popular thing to do.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I cast my vote for the young first grader a few
blocks from here who will have the opportunity to excel because her
parents had more options for her academic future.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2765, the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. And I
commend Chairman Young for bringing this, the 13th appropriations bill,
to the floor.
Under authority granted in Article I of the United States
Constitution (section 8, clause 17), this bill appropriates Federal
payments to the District to fund certain activities, and also approves
the District of Columbia's entire budget, including the expenditure of
local funds ($7.4 billion in local funds for fiscal year 2004).
Although the vast majority of the funds discussed in this bill are
local funds originating from the District of Columbia, I speak today
only about the $466 million in Federal funds appropriated in this bill.
H.R. 2765 as reported to the House, provides $466 million in new
budget authority. This bill is equal to the 302(b) suballocation for
the District of Columbia subcommittee as adopted by the Appropriations
Committee on July 22nd. I can report that this bill is consistent with
the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, which Congress adopted
as its fiscal blueprint on April 10. The bill therefore complies with
section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of
bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation
of budget authority.
H.R. 2765 contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, no
advanced appropriations, nor does it include rescissions of previously
enacted appropriations.
The bill is $45 million above the President's request, these
increases include $20 million for the water and sewer authority, and an
additional $10 million for the District of Columbia scholarship
program, $8 million for a unified communications center, and an
additional $7 million for public school facilities and the family
literacy programs.
In summary, this, the final appropriations bill, comes to the floor
in a form that is consistent with the Budget Resolution.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to add his support for
the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 (H.R.
2765) and would like to comment on what is probably the most
controversial provision of the measure--the appropriation of $10
million in Federal funds for a scholarship program that would allow
certain low-income District of Columbia parents to send their children
to private schools.
Although this Member does not support school vouchers because they
have the potential to do great damage to many public school
[[Page H7965]]
systems, this Member believes that the District of Columbia warrants
special consideration.
The District of Columbia has one of the most troubled public school
systems in the United States. School choice would offer hope to parents
and students by giving them the opportunity to select a school that
meets their educational needs, while the competition school choice
brings would improve the overall educational atmosphere for the
parents, teachers, and administrators who continue to work to improve
the District of Columbia public school system.
School children in the District of Columbia have been trapped in
failing schools for too long. Providing funding for a school choice
program would provide certain low-income parents residing in the
District of Columbia with the financial means needed to enroll their
children in higher-performing schools in the District of Columbia. In
addition, the funds these students receive could also be used to pay
for transportation, fees, and tuition costs.
The House of Representatives has used the District of Columbia
appropriations bill to provide school choice proposals for District of
Columbia students in the past. In fact, both the fiscal year 1996 and
1999 District of Columbia appropriations bills, as passed by the House,
contained language permitting the use of funds for a scholarship
program (although the language was not enacted into law). This Member
has supported these efforts in the past and believes it is essential
that this appropriations bill contain similar language allowing for a
District of Columbia scholarship program.
This legislation would not establish a voucher system; it is a system
of scholarships. In a voucher system, the public school money would go
with the child to the private or public school that the parents choose
for their child. However, under this scholarship program, if a student
receives a scholarship and decides to go to a private school, no funds
would be taken from the specific public school that the child was
attending. Therefore, the Washington, DC, school system would lose no
money if low-income children choose to attend private schools with the
scholarship money.
Opponents of the scholarship program claim that the District of
Columbia public school system overall would lose money under this plan.
However, the District of Columbia Mayor, Anthony A. Williams, has
indicated he will lead to hold District of Columbia schools harmless,
meaning that the public school system will keep more than $16 million
in local per pupil aid for the 2,000 children they will no longer have
to educate. This idea is briefly mentioned in the September 3, 2003,
Washington Post editorial, entitled ``Washington's Children Deserve
More Choices,'' written by Mayor Williams; Mr. Kevin P. Chavous, a
member of the DC Council and Chairman of its Education Committee, and;
Ms. Peggy Cooper Cafritz, President of the DC Board of Education. The
article says, ``. . . our public schools will not be penalized
financially for the loss of students to private or parochial schools.''
This Member has confirmed the Mayor's ``hold harmless'' provision with
staff at the Government Reform Committee and the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support
H.R. 2765.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 25, 2003, the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment printed in House Report 108-230 may be offered only by
a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in
the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2765
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of
Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and
for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--FEDERAL FUNDS
Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia, to be
deposited into a dedicated account, for a nationwide program
to be administered by the Mayor, for District of Columbia
resident tuition support, $17,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That such funds, including any
interest accrued thereon, may be used on behalf of eligible
District of Columbia residents to pay an amount based upon
the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at
public institutions of higher education, or to pay up to
$2,500 each year at eligible private institutions of higher
education: Provided further, That the awarding of such funds
may be prioritized on the basis of a resident's academic
merit, the income and need of eligible students and such
other factors as may be authorized: Provided further, That
the District of Columbia government shall maintain a
dedicated account for the Resident Tuition Support Program
that shall consist of the Federal funds appropriated to the
Program in this Act and any subsequent appropriations, any
unobligated balances from prior fiscal years, and any
interest earned in this or any fiscal year: Provided further,
That the account shall be under the control of the District
of Columbia Chief Financial Officer who shall use those funds
solely for the purposes of carrying out the Resident Tuition
Support Program: Provided further, That the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer shall provide a quarterly financial
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate for these funds showing, by object
class, the expenditures made and the purpose therefor:
Provided further, That not more than 7 percent of the total
amount appropriated for this program may be used for
administrative expenses.
Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the
District of Columbia
For necessary expenses, as determined by the Mayor of the
District of Columbia in written consultation with the elected
county or city officials of surrounding jurisdictions,
$15,000,000, to remain available until expended, to reimburse
the District of Columbia for the costs of providing public
safety at events related to the presence of the national
capital in the District of Columbia, and for the costs of
providing support to respond to immediate and specific
terrorist threats or attacks in the District of Columbia or
surrounding jurisdictions: Provided, That any amount provided
under this heading shall be available only after notice of
its proposed use has been transmitted by the President to
Congress and such amount has been apportioned pursuant to
chapter 15 of title 31, United States Code.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts
For salaries and expenses for the District of Columbia
Courts, $163,819,000, to be allocated as follows: for the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $8,775,000, of which
not to exceed $1,500 is for official reception and
representation expenses; for the District of Columbia
Superior Court, $83,387,000, of which not to exceed $1,500 is
for official reception and representation expenses; for the
District of Columbia Court System, $40,006,000, of which not
to exceed $1,500 is for official reception and representation
expenses: and $31,651,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2005, for capital improvements for District of
Columbia courthouse facilities: Provided, That funds made
available for capital improvements shall be expended
consistent with the General Services Administration master
plan study and building evaluation report: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
all amounts under this heading shall be apportioned
quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget and
obligated and expended in the same manner as funds
appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal
agencies, with payroll and financial services to be
provided on a contractual basis with the General Services
Administration (GSA), said services to include the
preparation of monthly financial reports, copies of which
shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President and to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate, the Committee on Government
Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee
on Governmental Affairs of the Senate: Provided further,
That 30 days after providing written notice to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate, the District of Columbia
Courts may reallocate funds provided under this heading
for the Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Superior
Court, and the District of Columbia Court System: Provided
further, That such reallocation may increase or decrease
funding for such entity by no more than two percent.
Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts
For payments authorized under section 11-2604 and section
11-2605, D.C. Official Code (relating to representation
provided under the District of Columbia Criminal Justice
Act), payments for counsel appointed in proceedings in the
Family Court of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia under chapter 23 of title 16, D.C. Official Code,
and payments for counsel authorized under section 21-2060,
D.C. Official Code (relating to representation provided under
the District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective
Proceedings, and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986),
$32,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided
further, That the funds provided in this Act under the
heading ``Federal Payment to the District of Columbia
Courts'' (other than the $31,651,000 provided
[[Page H7966]]
under such heading for capital improvements for District of
Columbia courthouse facilities) may also be used for payments
under this heading: Provided further, That in addition to the
funds provided under this heading, the Joint Committee on
Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia shall use
funds provided in this Act under the heading ``Federal
Payment to the District of Columbia Courts'' (other than the
$31,651,000 provided under such heading for capital
improvements for District of Columbia courthouse facilities),
to make payments described under this heading for obligations
incurred during any fiscal year: Provided further, That funds
provided under this heading shall be administered by the
Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of
Columbia: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, this appropriation shall be apportioned
quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget and
obligated and expended in the same manner as funds
appropriated for expenses of other Federal agencies, with
payroll and financial services to be provided on a
contractual basis with the General Services Administration
(GSA), said services to include the preparation of monthly
financial reports, copies of which shall be submitted
directly by GSA to the President and to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate,
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate.
Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
for the District of Columbia
(including transfer of funds)
For salaries and expenses, including the transfer and hire
of motor vehicles, of the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, as
authorized by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997, $163,081,000, of which
not to exceed $2,000 is for official receptions and
representation expenses related to Community Supervision and
Pretrial Services Agency programs; of which not to exceed
$25,000 is for dues and assessments relating to the
implementation of the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency Interstate Supervision Act of 2002; of which
$100,460,000 shall be for necessary expenses of Community
Supervision and Sex Offender Registration, to include
expenses relating to the supervision of adults subject to
protection orders or the provision of services for or related
to such persons; of which $37,411,000 shall be available to
the Pretrial Services Agency; and of which $25,210,000 shall
be transferred to the Public Defender Service for the
District of Columbia: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, all amounts under this heading shall
be apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and
Budget and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds
appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal
agencies: Provided further, That notwithstanding chapter 33
of title 40, United States Code, the Director may acquire by
purchase, lease, condemnation, or donation, and renovate as
necessary, Building Number 17, 1900 Massachusetts Avenue,
Southeast, Washington, District of Columbia to house or
supervise offenders and defendants, with funds made available
for this purpose in Public Law 107-96: Provided further, That
the Director is authorized to accept and use gifts in the
form of in-kind contributions of space and hospitality to
support offender and defendant programs, and equipment and
vocational training services to educate and train offenders
and defendants: Provided further, That the Director shall
keep accurate and detailed records of the acceptance and use
of any gift or donation under the previous proviso, and shall
make such records available for audit and public inspection.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority, $35,000,000, to remain available until
expended, to continue implementation of the Combined Sewer
Overflow Long-Term Plan: Provided, That the District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority provides a 100 percent
match for this payment.
Federal Payment for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia
Department of Transportation, $4,300,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2005, for design and construction of a
continuous pedestrian and bicycle trail system from the
Potomac River to the District's border with Maryland.
Federal Payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
For a Federal payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council, $1,300,000, to support initiatives related to the
coordination of Federal and local criminal justice resources
in the District of Columbia.
Federal Payment for Capital Development in the District of Columbia
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for
capital development, $8,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for the Unified Communications Center.
Federal Payment for Public School Facilities
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia Public
Schools, $4,500,000, of which $500,000 shall be for a window
repair and reglazing program and $4,000,000 shall be for a
playground repair and replacement program.
Federal Payment for the Family Literacy Program
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia,
$2,000,000 for the Family Literacy Program to address the
needs of literacy-challenged parents while endowing their
children with an appreciation for literacy and strengthening
familial ties: Provided, That the District of Columbia shall
provide a 100 percent match with local funds as a condition
of receiving this payment.
Federal Payment for a District of Columbia Scholarship Program
For a Federal payment for a District of Columbia
scholarship program, $10,000,000, subject to authorization.
Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia
For a Federal payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia, $10,000,000 for education, public
safety and health, economic development, and infrastructure
initiatives in the District of Columbia.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Norton
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Norton.
Page 11, strike lines 1 through 5.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment promises to be perhaps the
first of three voucher-only votes in this body at this time. The first
will be on this bill to remove or strike the funding for vouchers; the
second would be the Davis bill, which will try to legislate vouchers
onto this appropriation; and, of course, if vouchers remain in the
bill, the third would be the vote on the bill itself.
The $10 million in this bill is not a lot of money, and that is
really not what this controversy is about. It does not look like a lot
until you look at where it comes from and where it is going and what
will follow as a result of our vote.
First of all, first let us look at where the money is coming from.
This money has come straight out of education. It took a vote in the
Committee on Appropriations transferring money from the Labor-Education
appropriation over to the District appropriation in order to fund this
bill. It came straight out of education for this bill.
So we already see that this is not new money, as has been claimed,
that this is money straight out of education, and that is where voucher
money always comes from, because there is only one pot of money.
Different folks may designate that pot, but there is only one pot of
money, and that is where this money is coming from. It is coming from
it for the first time, if you vote for this bill and against my
amendment.
If you indeed vote to allow vouchers to remain in this bill, it will
not go unnoted. I do not know where you were at recess, but I know that
every State in the Union is crying about unkept promises for Federal
money. The biggest unkept promise is special education, which is taking
down education systems in entire States, including the District of
Columbia. We promised 40 percent. We have not come close to that.
Then, of course, there is the backlash against the No Child Left
Behind bill. That was a bipartisan bill. We are losing folks everywhere
because of that unfunded mandate, because there are going to be
children that are not going to be able to graduate from high school
because the funding to help them prepare for the tests is not there.
As long as there are mandated costs on our States and school
districts, it is simply impossible to justify diverting a single dollar
of public money to private schools.
Now, I know that there are Members here who voted in committee for
vouchers for the District who have never voted for vouchers generally
on a Federal bill, because you can do anything on the District of
Columbia. You can savage their public schools, as if
[[Page H7967]]
your States, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis), did not have such schools in Southern Virginia, as if
California, Mrs. Feinstein, did not have the L.A. School District in
it. And yet these folks will not vote to have vouchers so that those
school districts, sometimes rural, sometimes big city, can have the
same treatment as the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia schools have improved, but you will not find
me an apologist for the D.C. government and its problems or for the
D.C. school system. I am proud of the fact that scores have gone up for
the last 3 years. I am very proud of the transformation schools, where,
with extra services for parents and children alike, we now see a
breakthrough that no private school and no public school has ever
accomplished. These are the poorest children in the District of
Columbia. They have the least conscious parents. They have got foster
parents, sometimes they have got no parents at all or hardly any
parents; yet we have been able to break through because we provided a
lot of extra services for the parents and for the children alike.
Private schools and religious organizations will not see a vote for
vouchers for the District of Columbia as a vote that can be contained
here, and they are going to try to do all they can to make sure it is
not contained here. The pro-voucher forces have shown how well-funded
they are. They have been into your States, sometimes two or three
times, to get on the ballot; and you have turned them back every single
time. Not a single voucher referendum in the United States of America
has passed. But they keep coming back, because they have got a lot of
money, and you see that money on television ads as I speak.
If you want to fund vouchers, do it the way the Washington
Scholarship Fund did it. Fund the vouchers through private funds. Do
not displace those private funds with public funds.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, this amendment would
basically take $10 million in additional funds away from the District
of Columbia which it badly needs and $10 million away from an
educational system, by all accounts, that badly needs additional money
so that children have choices as to where they can go to school.
We know, Mr. Chairman, that the Mayor supports this voucher proposal,
the President of the school board, the chairman of the Committee on
Education and Libraries and Recreation of the D.C. council.
The Mayor has said on school choice, ``Despite the steady increases
in local funding and other efforts to support our public schools, I
have learned firsthand from hundreds of parents who feel there are no
practical or easy alternatives for their children within the current
systems of public education.''
On another occasion, Mayor Williams said relative to school choice,
``I was elected by the people of my beloved city and I took the solemn
oath to act in what I think are their best interests, even in the face
of conventional political wisdom. Today, I believe I have an obligation
to represent all the children of the District.''
Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as chairman, I have met with many
parents who have children in the public school system who support this
choice program. They are literally desperate to have this new
alternative.
The clearest evidence of the excitement for school choice is in the
city's charter school movement: 37 charter schools, 11 on the drawing
boards. I had a group representing the charter schools in my office
just yesterday saying that they had waiting lists for their four
charter schools that they run running at 300 children. So I think there
is a lot of desperateness on the part of parents to find alternatives.
I make the point again, Mr. Chairman, that the $10 million in the
bill are additional funds for the District above the subcommittee's
allocation. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) agreed to
transfer the funding from the Labor-HHS bill, and I am grateful for his
support of this initiative and the extra dollars.
{time} 1115
Eliminating this funding puts the $10 million for the District in
jeopardy of being transferred back to his committee and out of the city
hands. For these and other reasons, I ask this amendment be rejected
and we give the District leadership what it wants. What the mayor has
asked for is these dollars and certainly has asked for additional
dollars, and I have made a commitment to work in conference for the
other dollars for the District school system, as well as additional
dollars for the charter school movement.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It is very
interesting that this committee would say that the mayor and the chair
of the school board of the D.C. school systems want this money. What
mayor and what chairman of a school board would not want more money?
But the reality is that this $10 million should perhaps be going
towards adequately funding public schools. Perhaps it should be going
towards teacher training so that the teachers in the classroom are
better trained to do what they need to do. Perhaps the money should be
going towards special education.
But I stand here from a community, the city of Cleveland, that was
the test case in the Supreme Court for vouchers. And I stand here
capable and able to tell you that an independent study from Indiana
University reported that the children in voucher schools are doing no
better than the children in Cleveland public schools. I stand here to
say to you that instead of parceling out $10 million here and $10
million there, we ought to fund public education at a level that every
child in the United States of America is getting a decent education. We
ought to be saying to parents across this country that we want you to
have the opportunity to fund education in public school systems.
Now, the reality is we keep talking about parental choice. Even in
the Cleveland school system case, there was only a choice. All children
who did not go to public schools and took a voucher went to Catholic
schools. There was no choice. It was either public school or Catholic
school. And it is clear in the language of the Supreme Court case that
parents ought to have a choice. Let us get real in Congress. Let us get
real. Let us talk about funding public education where all children
have an opportunity to get a decent education. Let us talk about taking
money and improving the building systems. Let us talk about taking
money and reducing the teacher-student ratio. Let us talk about making
real, making real this piece that we talk to children about, the
importance of education, the importance of doing well.
By doing this $10 million voucher program for the D.C. school
systems, we are leaving out so many other children that ought to have a
decent education. The reality is in these United States the way we fund
education based on property taxes does not, in fact, make it fair.
The Supreme Court of Ohio found that the way we fund education in the
State of Ohio is unconstitutional because it means that if you live in
a community where the property tax is high and the dollars are
allocated for property tax for schools, that children in some parts of
the State get a better education than children in the other parts of
the State.
I say this morning, our job is to defeat this voucher program for the
D.C. school systems, to support the amendment of my colleague, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and to support a
strong public education for all children.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the elimination of these funds
and that we put these funds into public schools. Public schools is
where we need a fix. We need to fix our public schools. We do not need
to take money and resources away from public schools. We want to make
sure that every child has an opportunity to learn, that every child is
given the same tools that they are given somewhere else.
The answer is not to take those privileged kids and put them into
private schools. It is not going to change the system. And many of the
kids who are in the public schools will not have an opportunity to go
and use a voucher system. What happens to many of
[[Page H7968]]
those other kids in that area? Have we really fixed it?
I have heard us say, well, our schools are failing, the system is
failing. Well, it is our responsibility to fix it. It is our
responsibility to train teachers. It is our responsibility to motivate
the students. It is our responsibility to make sure that no child is
left behind.
Let me state that it is a shame when we go to school and a lot of our
children are not learning. There are many of our children that are
learning and those who are not. It is our ability and our
responsibility to make sure that those students have an opportunity to
progress. They want to do the same things that everybody else wants.
Let me state that if we take those funds away from public schools, what
is going to happen? We take those $10 million and we have kids to which
we say we want to prepare them for the 21st century, and they are not
prepared because they do not have the tools or instruments because we
have taken funding away. This is wrong. This is wrong for the District
of Columbia. This is wrong, and it will probably happen to other
portions of the States.
Is this what we want? No.
We want to invest in public education. We have good teachers who are
out there. We need to give them the funding. We need to give them the
tools. We need to give them the motivation. We need to give them the
support. They need to know that we stand behind them, that we want to
fix the schools, that we just do not want to take the easy answer. Like
our parents always said, if you have a difficult time, it is time to
get involved and do something about it. Do something that is going to
help the schools, not run away. This is just running away from the
problem, it is not fixing our school systems.
What happens? As our President said, I want to make sure that we
leave no child behind. We are going to leave more children behind
because what happens to the student if a student is expelled? Do you
think that student is going to be accepted at a private school under
the voucher system? Do you think that parents can then take that child
and put him into a private school under the voucher system? No. They
are only going to take the top of the crop. And what happens to this
school system? We still have the responsibility to fund it. We still
have the responsibility to make sure the infrastructure is there. Who
pays for that? We as taxpayers pay for that, and we are taking money
and resources from our schools.
Let me state that this is bad legislation. It is terrible
legislation. It should not even be up before us right now. We should be
making sure that we spend more money on education, therefore, we should
eliminate the funding.
Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform
chaired by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Tom Davis), I was privileged to hear the debate in its entirety on
the subject we address here today, and that is help for the children in
the failing District of Columbia public school system.
I do not think anyone in this Chamber, in any capital city, can
honestly say that the district schools are good. They cannot because
they are not. It is not a question of whether or not the D.C. school
system is failing. It already has and everybody knows it. If we are
going to ensure the education of the children in this city, we need to
provide funding to give at least 2,000 children a way out and an option
and a chance to attend a school where they can achieve. That is the
very least this body can do for them.
I was in that committee room that day and watched the anguish on the
faces of the mothers and grandmothers who were present, and I watched
them crying during and after the hearing. They made me more determined
than ever to help provide them and their children a way out of this
failing school system. One of the young fellows who was there, a 6-
year-old named Alonzo Stallans, drew a picture during the hearing that
he gave to me a couple of days later. It says, ``A good education, a
good future,'' in only the way that a 6-year-old can do it.
He gets it, but not everybody in this Chamber does.
I have had visits from those mothers and grandmothers of these young
folks, the most recent yesterday, and they have high hopes that we will
do the right thing and pass the legislation for these great young kids.
If we do, and we must, we will be giving them a chance at life that
most of us were given when we were their age.
What we do here today will change the lives of these young people
forever in a very positive way. I hear my colleagues talk about money
and fully funding the education system. Let us talk about that for a
minute.
If money were any indication of the success of a school system, the
boys and girls in Washington, D.C. would be receiving the finest
education in America with test scores higher than any students in
America. But that is not happening. In fact, the opposite is true. More
money is being spent in D.C. per student than anywhere in America and
the test results are the worst.
That is an absolute travesty.
These kids need and deserve a way out of this school system. The
legislation we pass here today will do just that.
Frankly, I think parents and grandparents know what is best for their
children, not the bureaucrats who roam the halls on Capitol Hill.
My wife and I knew what was best for our son and, frankly, he has
done great in life.
Parents and grandparents know what is best for their kids. They want
out of a school system that has failed them and their kids. Today we
are going to fix that. And, frankly, the sooner the better.
We have heard special praise for three people today. I want to do
that again. They are D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, D.C. Council
Education Committee Chairman Kevin P. Chavous, and D.C. Board of
Education President Peggy Cooper Cafritz for stepping up to the plate
and leading the charge for this legislation. That is true leadership.
And true leadership on this floor today means that we pass this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to give the D.C. kids a good chance at a successful life by voting for
this very worthwhile piece of legislation.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and to
oppose the ill-conceived Davis amendment to add vouchers to the
District of Columbia appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, not only have the citizens and many leaders of
Washington opposed vouchers, but the House has also made certain that
our own districts would not have mandated vouchers imposed in its
public schools.
I find that very interesting, Mr. Chairman, considering what the last
speaker just said. Basically the implication was that there should be
local control. It is clear here that we are trying to impose our will
on the District of Columbia when we cannot even do it.
We do not accept vouchers in our own districts. Why should we do it
here? I think we have to be very candid and honest with ourselves to
begin to ask the question, why are we doing this?
In fact, we rejected voucher proposals in the No Child Left Behind
legislation in the IDEA bill. The Record of this House reflects that
voucher amendments have been soundly defeated for years by this House.
So I find it interesting that some in the House want to impose a
voucher program for D.C., but clearly it is not something that they
want for their own districts.
You have heard many Members on the other side of the aisle say that
vouchers will help low-income children in Washington, D.C. They may
believe the hype that accompanies the debate on vouchers for our
Nation's disadvantaged children. But this is what we do know about
vouchers: Vouchers drain money away from public schools and leave the
remaining children with even less resources, schools like the ones in
my district where in one school there were 13 computers for 1,300
children. Where children, just a year or so ago, were reading out of
books where Jimmy Carter was still the President. These were honor
students. And situations where children can go through
[[Page H7969]]
high school without ever looking through the lens of a microscope.
Another thing that we know about vouchers is that vouchers do not
improve student achievement. I wish they did, but they do not. And let
us not be fooled by that. Vouchers offer false promises of choice
because private schools have the ultimate decision on which students
they enroll.
Of its 42 public charter schools and 15 public transformation
schools, Washington, D.C. has the most wide-ranging set of alternatives
to traditional public schools in this entire country. Public school
choice is the real choice and the only choice program we should support
in this House.
Mr. Chairman, I know that every Member of the House wants to provide
the best education possible for our children. I believe that investing
adequate funds in public schools with access to technology, up-to-date
textbooks, and highly-qualified teachers is the correct choice.
The District of Columbia should not be used as an experiment for
public school reform.
I urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment and vote against
the Davis amendment. An experimental voucher program in Washington,
D.C. will leave too many children behind and harm the city's public
schools.
{time} 1130
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the gentlewoman's amendment. With 42 public charter schools and 15
public transformation schools, the 70,000 children of the District of
Columbia have school choice, with the most extensive set of
alternatives to traditional public schools in the country. For this
reason the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton)
simply believes that any additional public funds should be used to
enhance and expand these publicly accountable schools.
The central question before us is whether or not we believe, as a
Congress, that every child should have access to an equal high-quality
education. Who among us does not believe in this? I have introduced
House Joint Resolution 29, a constitutional amendment that crystallizes
this premise and that ensures that every child in the United States has
access to an equal high-quality education, an idea I think and hope all
of us will support.
If we believe that every child in America deserves a high-quality
public education, then why are we here today considering that only
2,000 of 70,000 children in the District of Columbia public school
system should have an equal high-quality education? If we believe that
every child should have access to high-quality education, we should
support the gentlewoman's amendment. The District of Columbia has
serious problems that need real solutions.
Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congress
responsibility over the District of Columbia. They do not have a State
legislature or a governor to which to redress their grievances. That
responsibility includes all of the children of the District of Columbia
public school system, not just the 2,000 children that the voucher
program in this bill addresses.
Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the
power to provide for the common defense. Yesterday, we found out that
the common defense includes $60 billion for another appropriations
supplemental bill which includes building schools in Iraq. If we can
find the resources to rebuild schools in Iraq, I know we can find the
resources to rebuild the schools for all of the children of the
District of Columbia and their public school system.
It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that if the proponents of this $10 million
set aside for vouchers truly think they will improve the education
system in D.C., they would probably also try to fix a broken arm with a
Band-Aid. In January 2002, President Bush signed a bill that was
supposed to ensure that no child was left behind. If this $10 million
is included in this bill, we are ensuring that 68,000 D.C. kids are
left behind.
At a time when the No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded by close
to $9 billion nationwide and is underfunded by $50 million in the
District, does it make sense to try to make up this shortfall with only
$10 million that will subsidize private schools and not fix some of the
core problems plaguing D.C. public schools?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge and support the gentlewoman's
amendment. If the gentlewoman's amendment fails, I urge my colleagues
to vote against the passage of the D.C. Appropriations bill. If this
Congress genuinely believes that every child deserves the right to a
public education of equal high quality, then we should fight for it as
a fundamental right for every American. A separate and unequal
education system in the District of Columbia and between the States is
indeed unacceptable for every American.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I am pleased to be here for this debate, and I was pleased to hear
the gentleman from Illinois recognize the primacy of our involvement
here, that the Constitution does grant the U.S. Congress authority to
move on matters such as this for the District of Columbia.
I have found it interesting to listen to the debate and to listen
about this amendment in particular. This amendment is based on the
premise that no one in the District of Columbia wants to have a voucher
to travel to anything other than a public school, and we have heard
that argument again and again and again from the other side, nobody
wants this program.
On this side, polls are quoted. There were 57 percent, 60 percent, 75
percent, various numbers of people who want to see this program move
ahead. I say the only way to settle it is to offer them, and if it is
true as the gentlewoman who offered this amendment proposes, that
nobody wants these vouchers, then nobody will accept them, nobody will
take them. An affirmative action has to be taken for a voucher to be
used. They are imposed on no one. They simply have to be used by a
parent. So if it is the case that nobody wants them, that the parents
of the District of Columbia do not want to have vouchers, this
appropriation of funds will have no effect because the money simply
will not be spent. But if it is, as is the case as we maintain, that
there are parents who do want them, then they will be used. So it is up
to the parents.
I found it strange in the hearings leading up to this on the bill
that I offered, and then later on the bill that we had before us, both
times those on the other side of the aisle stood and said parents in
D.C. do not want vouchers, and each time the parents lined up at the
back of the room said otherwise. Parents, lined up outside in the hall,
said otherwise. I say if my colleagues really believe in choice, that
parents ought to have that choice, then let us put this to the test,
allow this to go forward. If it is the case that parents do not want
them, they simply will not be used; but if they do want them, they
will. So it is up to the parents in the District of Columbia.
I applaud those who have helped put this bill together and to put it
on the floor today.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes.
I do rise in support of the gentlewoman from D.C.'s amendment and in
opposition to what I perceive to be the latest Republican attack on our
public schools.
We hear about all the money spent, but let me remind my colleagues
that across this country, roughly, only 7 percent or less are Federal
funds, and yet we see now we want to control 100 percent of what goes
on in our schools. For people who believe in local control, I feel here
that somebody is missing the boat or misrepresenting the facts.
Vouchers are a bad idea. They always have been because they drain
resources away from the public schools in this country where 90-plus
percent of our children, depending on the States, go to school. They
are educated there. And my colleagues do that in favor of private
schools, where there is no accountability for the taxpayers' money at a
time when we are running huge deficits, the largest in the history of
this country, and yet we do not want to fund the public schools.
[[Page H7970]]
We are eating our seed corn and ruining our future. Rather than
siphoning funds from the public schools, we ought to be investing more
initiatives in things like school construction. My colleagues have
talked about it. I will not go into detail. Teacher training, if we
really want to improve the quality of instruction in the classroom, put
the resources out to improve teacher training. Reduce class sizes,
provide tutorial help for those children who are behind. Those are
proven methods that raise academic achievement.
I can tell my colleagues it has happened. It happened in North
Carolina where I was State Superintendent, and it is still happening.
It will not happen if we take the funds away and continue to erode
public support.
Under the No Child Left Behind, our public schools are forced to do
more than they have ever been required to do before, and this
administration and this Congress refuses to fund No Child Left Behind
because what has that done? That has created a massive, unfunded
mandate on our States and our local school units at the very time when
they are struggling to make budgets balance. The last thing we should
be doing is use this Republican voucher scheme to take public dollars
that should be going to strengthen our public schools and putting them
in private tuition grants.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And if this amendment
does not win, then we should defeat this bill because this will prove,
over the long run, to be detrimental to public education in the United
States of America.
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and in support
of the $10 million that is being appropriated to the D.C. public
schools.
The reason that this money is being given to the system is so that we
can improve the system. School choice has been shown to improve an
opportunity for a child. Each child who has been suffering through the
terrible school system of Washington, D.C., is really imprisoned in
that District. This money will give these children an opportunity to
learn, and I believe that is what schools are for.
Unfortunately, the D.C. public schools have been in crisis, and it is
unfair to force children who live in D.C. to be subjected to a terrible
education or a lack of an education. Statistics show that a very high
percentage of students drop out. They also show that the D.C. schools
are ranked lower than every other State in reading or every State in
reading and math scores. Students score on the average of 220 points
below the national average on the SATs. Seventy-six percent of D.C.'s
fourth graders perform below grade level in math and only 10 percent
read proficiently by the fourth grade. These problems persist, despite
spending more than nearly every school District in the Nation, at least
$11,000 per pupil.
It was stated earlier that we were promoting parochial self-interest
if we promote school choice in D.C. If parochial self-interest is
parents wanting their children to get a real education, then I am all
for that, and this is what this will do. It will allow these parents to
find a better way to educate their children. If their child is
currently in the D.C. schools, their opportunities are really not
limitless the way they should be. School choice offers them more
opportunity. It will also offer the children who stay in the public
schools more opportunity, and it really is dismaying to me that the
opponents of school choice do not see this.
Problems in many inner city school districts, such as D.C., are
caused largely because of overcrowding too many children in a
classroom. For example, school choice will take a number of children
out of the public school system. This is true. They will go to schools
that are now empty or at least in need of more students. That will
allow smaller classes in the D.C. schools. It will encourage the D.C.
schools to improve, in fact give them more opportunity to do so, with
fewer students and the same amount of money.
So it will relieve overcrowding in the D.C. public schools. It will
help the children because the children will have an opportunity to go
to a school where they will learn, where they will feel safe in many
cases where they may not now.
It is unfair for us, and I think completely irresponsible for us, to
waste the learning year of the children who happen to be in these
schools now and say, well, we are going to fix the public schools, but
if it takes 6 to 12 years to fix them, what happens to those children
who are still in the public schools? Nothing good. We need to give them
an opportunity to learn now, elsewhere if that is where they need to
go, in a place that is more suitable for their education, while we work
on and fix the D.C. public schools.
I support this appropriation. I support school choice for D.C., and I
hope that we will oppose this amendment.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of the Norton amendment, and I strongly oppose
private school vouchers. No matter the location, the type of program or
the amount, vouchers are a bad idea for our children. The Committee on
Government Reform approved this amendment by a one-vote, razor-thin
margin. Both Republicans and Democrats voted against the D.C. voucher,
and I thank my colleagues for their opposition to D.C. vouchers.
Serious concerns were raised about this amendment during committee
consideration. I share those concerns and believe it is important that
this information be shared with the public.
We know that vouchers drain millions from public education. Any extra
money should be invested into D.C. public schools and other public
schools nationwide that deserve the majority of our children. Investing
in public schools helps us hire more highly-qualified teachers,
purchase supplies and books, and repair our schools. Vouchers are not
the solution.
Vouchers eliminate public oversight for taxpayer dollars.
Unfortunately, as illustrated in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida's
voucher programs, vouchers eliminate public oversight, public
accountability and have led to cases of fraud and fiscal mismanagement.
Vouchers contradict the accountability reform required by the No
Child Left Behind, such as the hiring of highly-qualified teachers and
the annual testing and public reporting on student performance. These
standards are not required by private schools that accept federally
funded vouchers, creating a double standard regarding Federal funding
and education.
I would be glad to hear from proponents of vouchers to tell us why we
should not have accountability when public dollars follow these
children to private institutions. I would love to hear from the other
side to tell us why we should not have better accountability.
I offered an amendment in the Committee on Government Reform in good
faith, asking that the same standards that apply to all of our public
schools also apply to these vouchers. I would love to hear their
response.
{time} 1145
I urge my colleagues to respect the right of D.C. residents to make
decisions of their own in their city. The majority of D.C. elected
officials and residents oppose vouchers. The official position of the
D.C. school board and city council is to oppose vouchers. If the
residents of the District of Columbia wanted vouchers in D.C., their
local governance, the school board or city council could create such a
program.
Some in this body have suggested that D.C. residents need our
permission or Federal money to create a voucher program. That simply is
not true. D.C. residents do not need the permission of this Congress.
Nor do they need the Federal purse to create a program. D.C. residents
just do not want vouchers.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned how we feel about
accountability. The ultimate accountability is portability, the ability
to move to a different school if you do not like the school you are
attending now. That is the ultimate accountability and that is what
this provides.
Mr. CLAY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I might respond that we
also need accountability of public dollars. When those dollars follow
those children to those private institutions, we should also hold them
accountable
[[Page H7971]]
and have benchmarks. Show us where test scores have improved, show us
where reading levels have gone up, show us where dropout rates have
been lower. That is the kind of accountability I am suggesting.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would advise him that in reading the bill he will see that there are
extensive reporting requirements in the bill.
Mr. CLAY. No, there are not. No, there are not. Now, we discussed
this when Secretary Paige came to the committee, and he suggested that
we do strengthen the language in the bill to have real accountability.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is real
accountability. Portability is the best accountability.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise to oppose this amendment.
I have a great deal of interest in education. I have been married to
a public school teacher. He taught for 24 years. When I was a graduate
of college, I taught public school for a time before I started raising
our four children. When I first started being interested in public
policy, I ran for our local board of education, and I served there for
4 years before I went into the State legislature in Colorado. One of my
committee assignments that I requested right away was the education
committee because I feel very strongly that a good education is one of
the best tools that we can give a child in order that they might have a
successful life.
I have faced the challenges that public school teachers face. I am
very appreciative of the job that they do. I am, most of all, however,
very respectful of parents. You birth a child, you nurse a child, you
get up with them in the middle of the night when they are sick, you try
to instruct them on what they should eat, you try to instruct them on
how they should behave, you instruct them in the moral arena; but
somehow or another when it then comes to education, some people think
that parents do not have the ability to make a good choice for their
child. Well, of course they have the ability. But most of all they love
that child, and they have a very strong desire for that child to be
successful.
So who are we, who is anybody to tell parents that they cannot make a
choice for their child? And as parents, one of the things that we want
to do is we want to have hope for our child's success. We all know our
children have different learning styles. Even within a family, children
are very different; and parents make various choices for the different
children. And I think that we should trust parents to know what is best
for their child. I think that we need to empower parents to make an
educational choice for their children.
Again, a quality education is one of the best things that we can give
a student. It empowers them to make choices in their life. It empowers
them to have a realization of success. I think that when parents are
seeing their children fail in a school that it is very important that
we empower them to make a selection for their child that will give them
hope, that will empower them.
When I was on the school board, when I was a teacher, when I was
involved in my children's education, one of the things that the
educational community continually asked for was parental involvement.
Everybody knows that one of the best predictors of a child's success in
education is the involvement of their parents. Let us let these parents
in D.C. be involved in their children's education.
Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment, hopeful that
we will pass the Norton amendment and not engage in what I think most
charitably can be described as a giant cop-out. It saddens me that we
have reached a point in this Nation's history when so many people
simply want to throw up their hands and suggest that the only way that
we can solve the problems facing public school education in the United
States is to send more and more children to private schools, forgetting
that what has separated the United States of America from other
countries throughout the world is the fact that our forefathers made a
commitment to public school education, deciding that children,
regardless of financial status, would have free access to a quality
public school education.
I serve on the Committee on Government Reform. I listened to the
debate there, and I am listening to the debate here. It is very
similar, where once again the proponents of this voucher measure
suggest that the only way to give parents in Washington, D.C. choice is
through private school vouchers. Mr. Chairman, that is simply false.
And if my colleagues do not believe me, all they have to do is look at
the D.C. public school Web site, where it talks about the out-of-
boundary policy, the out-of-boundary application process, discretionary
transfer, is for parents or guardians who wish to apply for permission
to enroll their children in D.C. PS schools other than their
neighborhood school.
The Washington Post, May 20, 2003: ``Throughout the Washington area
there are multiple options for parents seeking alternatives to
traditional neighborhood schools.'' The Federal No Child Left Behind
law stipulates that if a neighborhood school underperforms for 2
consecutive years, parents may transfer their child to another school.
D.C. is doing it the way it should be done, by offering parents a
choice through the public school system.
I can say that that is the way it is to be done because I come from a
city, the city of Houston, that improved its public school system by
using public school choice and other measures, a city where in the
1980s many wanted to throw up their hands and say you cannot afford to
send your child to the Houston Independent School District; you have to
send your child to a private school so that they can get an adequate
education. But some community leaders, thankfully, were not willing to
accept that argument. They were not willing to simply cop out and throw
up their hands. They decided we had to do something about our public
education system, so they did implement programs like public school
choice and charter schools and called for more local control.
So much improvement has been seen in the Houston Independent School
District, so much improvement that a Republican President, George Bush,
decided that the superintendent who had overseen most of that
improvement, Rod Paige, should serve as the Secretary of Education in
his administration. And private school vouchers had absolutely no role
in the improvement of Houston public schools.
Then we hear the argument that moving money out of the D.C. public
schools and into a private school voucher program will have no real
impact; that money does not really play a role in the performance of
public schools. How ludicrous is that? Schools, teachers, books.
Everybody realizes they all cost money, a lot of money. And there are
no private schools that I am aware of who are asking for less money.
They are constantly asking the parents of their children for money, and
they are constantly calling on private foundations for more donations.
So let us not pretend this voucher bill is not going to have a
profound financial impact on D.C. public schools, and let us also not
pretend, let us also not pretend that this voucher measure is just
about D.C. schools. Because I have listened to that argument as well;
that this is a D.C. problem and let D.C. try this because it will not
impact anyone else. If I truly believed that, perhaps I would not feel
so passionately about this measure, but I do not.
I do think this will start us on a slippery slope. And I hate that
argument because it is used and abused here. And there is no one in
this Chamber who cannot look at a mole hill and see a mountain instead
and suggest that with every issue we are starting down a slippery
slope. But in this particular case I do believe that is what we are
looking at. I think the proponents of vouchers in this Nation, seeing
that they had failed in passing vouchers in any sort of broad-ranged
manner, want to do it on an incremental basis starting with D.C., and
trying to gather some favorable statistics, like you can always do, and
then spreading it from State to State, city to city, until finally we
have more and more children enrolled in private schools.
Mr. Chairman, that brings me back to where I started, a cop-out, a
giant cop-out, the wrong road to go down, a path that I hope we will
not start on here today.
[[Page H7972]]
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we stand here today with the opportunity to join Mayor
Williams, the President of the D.C. School Board, the chairman of the
city council's education committee, and numerous parents who are all
excited about the opportunity for Congress to provide $10 million in an
innovative pilot program for education in D.C.
Educational equality for all of our children regardless of their
family's income is a fundamental principle of the American education
system. However, too many low-income families find themselves in a
position where they are unable to send their children to the school of
their choice simply because they are poor. Families living in poor
neighborhoods are unable to make the education choices that many of us
can afford to make for our own children when we buy a house in a suburb
with high-performing public schools or send our own children to private
schools.
The D.C. choice pilot program offers hope and empowers parents and
students in the District of Columbia by giving them the opportunity to
select a school that meets their educational needs while the
competition school choice brings will improve the overall educational
atmosphere for the parents, teachers, and administrators who continue
to work to improve the public school system within the District. This
debate today should be about doing everything we can to better educate
all of our children.
In 1996 and 1997, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce embarked on a project
called Education at a Crossroads. We went around the country. We talked
to parents, we talked to teachers, and we talked to administrators.
Now, people say that we have to focus on improving public education,
and we are doing that; and we are investing significant dollars both at
the Federal level and at the State level to make that happen. But I
still remember the father who came to me in New York City and said,
they are just embarking on another 5-year plan. He had a 7- or 8-year-
old son with him. He said, you know, a few years ago they embarked on a
5-year plan, and I had hoped that my son would be going to a better
school. The schools are now as bad if not worse than what they were 5
years ago. And now they are embarking on another 5-year plan, where we
are not guaranteed or we do not really know what this 5-year plan will
bring, but I do know what it will mean for my son. If it is no better
at the end of this next 5-year plan than it was at the end of first 5-
year plan, the product that we will lose is my son. My son will have
been in schools that did not help him learn what he needed to learn to
compete. Please give me the opportunity to send my son to a high-
performing school.
In D.C. last summer we had the opportunity to meet with the parents
of the D.C. scholarship program who are enthused and excited about the
opportunities that they had had to make decisions for their children,
to get them in a school that enabled their children to get the
education that they needed, and they saw dramatic progress. I laugh
about the accountability, saying we have to put in the accountability
standards so that these schools will be accountable to an education
department down on Independence Avenue. All we have to do is look into
the face of the parents in New York City, in Cleveland, in Detroit, or
in Washington, D.C. and you can see that the accountability that we
need is not to a bureaucrat in Washington, not to a bureaucrat in one
of our State capitals. The accountability that we need is of a school
district to a parent. A parent sees and knows what is happening with
their child each and every day.
This is about giving D.C. the chance to experiment with this change
so that low-income children in our Nation's capital can get a better
education now, which we all know is a critical predicate for their
future success in life. It is exactly what the parents in the park told
us last summer.
{time} 1200
This debate has been sidetracked by political ideology, and in the
process we are further condemning the students in the District of
Columbia to an education system that has left a majority of its
students nonproficient in reading and math. It has left these students
behind.
I urge Members to support the D.C. appropriations bill and to oppose
the Norton amendment on this legislation. Many parents in D.C. cannot
afford any other choices for their children, and we have the
opportunity today to make $10 million available, and allow 7,500
families who are on the waiting list for this possibility to truly
choose what will work for their children.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Norton amendment. There
has been a lot of conversation today about whether this $10 million
somehow takes money away from the public school system. There has been
a lot of discussion about whether making an investment in vouchers
drains resources away. I think that is the wrong focus, with all due
respect to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
because regardless of whether we are taking money away from one pot and
putting it into another, let us make no mistake about something that we
are doing: We are taking and subtracting credibility from the public
school system.
If we have a vouchers game anyplace in this country, we are
implicitly saying to that community that the public school system is
not good enough. What is the consequence of saying that? I happen to
have come primarily from the public school system in Birmingham and
Montgomery, Alabama. There are some of us who remember a time in this
country when the public school system had a very unique role. It was,
number one, the one instrument that we had that brought people together
from different classes and different walks of life. You could have
someone who was the son of a CEO at a bank sitting next to someone who
came from the wrong side of the railroad tracks. The public school was
once a civic institution in this country.
For a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this debate,
that kind of civic pride in our schools has been drained away. For a
variety of reasons, we have lost confidence in the public school system
in this country; but the challenge is what do we do about it.
The proponents of vouchers tell us we can simply give people a chance
to opt out. The proponents of vouchers say we can simply allow people
to walk away from the system and that we can treat our public schools
like a failed Wal-Mart or a failed BP or a failed Shell gas station; if
it closes down, people can go someplace else.
Mr. Chairman, I would submit we are a stronger and a better country
if we continue and we sustain our exclusive public investment in a
public education system. I do not think that we can drain away a
commitment from the vast public purpose of education in this country
without having an enormous consequence to where we stand as a Nation.
It is true that we are 13th in the industrialized world in math and
science scores. We rank number 15 in civic scores. The problem is that
we are not making the kind of investment, either in terms of resources
or in terms of community commitment, in our public schools that they
deserve. Make no mistake about it, if we endorse this back door, if we
open up this back door to vouchers, we are degrading and we are
cheapening our public schools.
I have heard a lot of attacks from the other side of the aisle about
how bad the public school system is in D.C., and I would venture that a
lot of the speakers, if they were asked the systems in their cities,
would probably come forward and launch the same kind of attacks. The
families of this country are listening. The people who are struggling
to teach in our schools may be busy right now, but they hear about
these kinds of debates. And we ought to understand something: Teaching
is an enormously honorable profession. Public education is an
enormously honorable civic endeavor. But you do not walk away from
civic endeavors, you do not create a private back channel to civic
endeavors.
I urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment because it is a
very important symbol. I agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell)
that
[[Page H7973]]
this is an effort, it is the beginning of a slow effort to introduce
vouchers into the public mainstream. It will be D.C. today. Next year,
it will be a request that we have 5 target cities around the country,
and then it will be a request that we have 10 target States around the
country. This is very much where the administration wants to go.
The problem is that I am not prepared to abandon our public school
system until we have made a stronger and better commitment. As one of
the speakers on this side said earlier, only 7 percent of the money
that goes into education comes from this budget and this appropriations
process. We cannot let this system go anywhere in our country until we
have done more and made a stronger and better commitment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose vouchers for D.C. and to
keep the credibility of the D.C. school system intact and to keep the
civic institution intact.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Norton amendment and
in support of the bill. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and my colleague and friend, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for really taking the
initiative. He did not have to do this, and he is doing this. This is
very, very important.
I have five children. I am a product of public schools. All of my
kids have gone to public schools. I worked for probably only one of a
few Members of Congress, Congressman Pete Biester, who had a child in
the District of Columbia schools. There are no Members in this body
that I know of that have any of their children in District of Columbia
schools. Many are in private schools, many are not here, but they are
not in the District of Columbia schools.
My daughter Virginia taught in the D.C. public school system. She
worked for 4 years at the Community of Hope up at 14th and Belmont. She
can tell Members what the conditions of the public schools are. I think
as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) said, if D.C. needs more
money, offer the amendment and we will support it. But for these 1,000
children, that is their opportunity to get out. Everyone knows, Members
know if you had not had that opportunity to have that education, you
may not have gotten out. All of us on both sides of the aisle may have
been in that condition. It is a way out.
I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen)
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), but particularly Mayor
Williams for his leadership. I went to John Bartram High School, and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) knows where that is, on
67th and Elmwood Avenue. Education was my way out of there.
My dad was a policeman with a sixth-grade education. Education got me
my way out. Why is it not good for those 1,000 families that are going
to get their children out of there? Sometimes going into the schools,
as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) discussed, and in talking
to the parents, they tell us their kids may be beaten up and they may
have problems. Let us help the schools. Offer the amendment and do what
you can.
I want to commend also Senator Feinstein and Senator Byrd. Senator
Byrd is a statesman, and I commend him for his leadership. He
understands. I also commend Mayor Williams because it is tough to break
sometimes with your party. I know sometimes we get locked in over here
and we do not want to leave, but he did. I commend Kevin Chavous for
the leadership to break with the city council and do what he did. They
have provided the leadership for 1,000 boys and girls.
If you are a father and you know your kids are not getting an
education, if you are a mother and you know they are not getting an
education, do not tell them, wait, we are going to improve the schools
next year, we have a 5-year program, because if they are 7 and 8 and 9,
we may lose them.
This is not to expand a program all over the country. The gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has probably done more to help the
District of Columbia, working with the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton), than any other Member of the House. This is to
help. This is to help 1,000 parents to have an opportunity to educate
their children.
I strongly urge defeat of the Norton amendment, and I again thank the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their leadership, because in 1,000 homes
this year and 1,000 homes next year, they will really make a
difference, and help some of the kids to be educated. Come back next
year and offer the amendments to beefup the District of Columbia
schools. I give my commitment. I will support it; but let us today
support this bill to help those 1,000 kids.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues, where are these 1,000 slots
in our private schools? I rise in support of school choice in the
District of Columbia, but public school choice. The District of
Columbia, as we know and as Members have spoken to, has been a national
leader in supporting charter schools to provide alternative choices for
its families.
In 1996, the D.C. Council passed the Public Charter Schools Act. That
launched this decision as the best method to improve the public
schools. Not only have they instituted a large number of charter
schools for the District of Columbia enrollment, but they have also
supervised these programs and they have closed those charter schools
that have not been successful.
I support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to back this local decision. If the majority
wants to appropriate additional funding for children in D.C., let the
sum be appropriated to increase funding for the charter schools, to
expand that program so that charter schools can have the resources
needed to provide adequate and safe facilities as well as the programs
of choice.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we must support D.C.'s children, but we can
do that by continuing to support successful alternatives in the public
school system.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have been struggling with this issue, and unlike so
many other Members of this House who have had a position either for or
against the voucher issue, in Michigan we actually had a statewide
voucher proposal initiative on the ballot about 2\1/2\ years ago and it
was defeated. I voted against the voucher initiative.
All of the arguments that are being advanced here today were part of
our debate in Michigan. They were part of the debate in the Committee
on Government Reform, on which I sit: Concerns about cherry-picking
students where the private schools have their very high standards and
the smart ones are picked, but the slower ones may be left behind.
Concerns about religious schools where by taking tax dollars, suddenly
the government begins to enforce certain requirements. And it is the
old saw: Once you take the shekel, the shackle will follow.
I am a product of public education. I believe in public education. My
grandmother was a schoolteacher in the public education system for
almost 40 years, and I believe that public education has been the
backbone of America. The educational opportunities may vary, but at
least everyone has a chance at an education.
However, this proposal is quite different, quite different from what
happened in the great State of Michigan. In our State we were talking
about a Constitutional change, and it would have affected literally
every school district, even those considered blue-ribbon schools. This
proposal only deals with the D.C. schools, which by any definition are
almost the worst in the Nation.
Quite frankly, I cannot imagine how it can get any worse, and I
cannot turn my back when so many parents are literally on their knees
begging for a chance for their children. I feel the D.C. case is an
exception. First of all, the schools are not forced to participate.
Secondly, we are assured by this legislation that we will be closely
tracking the progress of this program to benchmark progress and to
ensure scrutiny and oversight.
Where our referendum in Michigan would have actually made the voucher
[[Page H7974]]
proposal permanent by changing our Constitution, this proposal in D.C.
is temporary, and it must show marked improvement in order to be
reauthorized after 5 years. The elected leadership wants it. The mayor
has spoken out. I think if we are truly compassionate, we must support
this proposal and give these children a chance.
Some are saying that we are voting for choice, and I say we are
voting for chance. Give these children a chance.
{time} 1215
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I too am from the State of Michigan and, yes, our State
did turn down the voucher proposal as did this United States Congress
and other States around the country. Over 90 percent of America's
children go to public education. If this Congress really wanted to fix
public education, we could do that. I support the Norton amendment
because it is about home rule, about the people of each jurisdiction
deciding as Michigan did, as this Congress did for the country, that
they did not want vouchers.
I support all forms of education, but public money for public
schools. That is what our Constitution says and that is what most State
Constitutions say, as well as our country. If we really wanted to help
the D.C. public schools, let us help all 70,000 students. How do you
pick 2,000 out and say, okay, we're going to do it for you but not for
you 68,000. If we, the United States Congress, are overseers for
Washington, D.C., unfortunately, why not take all 70,000? How do you
pick 2,000 of what some have described as one of the worst systems? I
do not know about that, either, if it is the worst system. What is
worse and what is bad is that this Congress, this United States
Government, does not fund public education adequately where 90 percent
of America's children attend.
Education is the difference between success and failure in a person's
life. The budget is $2.2 trillion; $800 billion of it is discretionary.
If we had the commitment for these 2,000 children, just think what we
could do with the 70,000 with that $750 billion discretionary budget
that we have. Do not fool ourselves. There is only one pot of money.
When you take money from this end, as we are doing for the 68,000, it
does not make it better. It destabilizes public education.
I am a teacher. I am a parent. I have been in institutions of higher
learning. I know when children, and you all know them, are bright,
wide-eyed and bushy-tailed at 3, 5 and ready to go, they can be taught.
All children can be taught. Someone said earlier, some kids are not
teachable. I do not believe that. I think God created all of us equal
and that all children can be taught in adequate schools that have
trained teachers and the technology of today. And the commitment from
not just the city, not just the State but, yes, this United States
Congress should do what is right.
I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from this District. She fights
very hard and in very difficult circumstances as this United States
Congress does not allow her to represent her people who have spoken,
irrespective of what the Mayor does, and I respect his opinion, but
many people in the D.C. District and its city council and its school
board have spoke loudly, they do not want vouchers. If you are going to
save this District, they say save all 70,000 of us and help us in that
vein.
In Michigan, we voted down vouchers. Other jurisdictions voted down
vouchers. Public money for public schools. Let us teach our children.
Give them the opportunity they need to succeed in this world. They do
not need to be 2,000 against the 68,000. In D.C. if you are going to
have a United States Congress, let us do it for all 70,000. How do you
pick 2,000 out of that? I think it is despicable. I think the people of
D.C. have spoken. What we must do as a United States Congress is
reinforce our children and provide for them the best education that
they can have wherever they go to school. In Taiwan, they spend 70
percent of their Federal budget on education. In the United States we
spend less than 2 percent of our Federal dollars on education. There is
something wrong with this equation. It is not the D.C. community, it is
not the District that is bad, it is not that the children are not
performing. It is that this country has not made the commitment yet to
God's children in this country to give them the very best that we can
offer.
I commend the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. I hope this
Congress will support her.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in the strongest support of the Norton amendment. I have
listened very closely for the last hour and a half and I have heard
very few people who are in opposition to this amendment support public
schools. I heard them admit to the disaster that public schools are
here in Washington, D.C. We invaded Iraq and it is costing us a billion
dollars a week. The White House is going to come here and ask for
multibillions of dollars in just a few days. Why does this coalition
that is in so much support of the vouchers here, that will only address
2,000 students out of 70,000, not ask that we put money into what you
consider a broken school district? We are going to go and build up the
school system in Iraq, the health care system, the infrastructure, and
you will not do that for the Washington, D.C. schools, where the seat
of government operates? I am appalled. And you want to cut and run.
We already know that the D.C. schools are suffering from a $40
million budget cut and a $100 million shortfall. Why do you not argue
and support more money to fix all the schools, because we indeed will
leave all of our children behind. Two thousand students going into
private education is ludicrous. If you really believe that education is
the way and you have that commitment, then argue for additional dollars
for the D.C. school district. The Mayor is only one person. The city
council has a letter on hand that says they do not support the D.C.
voucher program. And why? Because it will siphon money away.
Do not treat us like we cannot add and subtract. If we take $10
million to put into the private sector, that is $10 million away from
the public schools. I urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia who has worked so hard, who is the heart
and the soul of this district and cannot even vote. So we must vote for
her. Let us save our schools. Let us save all of our children and not
cherry-pick 2,000 children for private education and send those public
dollars into the private sector.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment and
remove the funding for vouchers in D.C. that will only shortchange our
teachers, our students, and our schools. Let us improve all of the
system.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have been in public life 30 years. I used to strongly
oppose vouchers because I believed the arguments that we have been
hearing in opposition without really frankly thinking them through. And
then I opposed vouchers because I did not want to lose the support of
the Connecticut Education Association and the local education
associations because they opposed the concept of allowing our young
people to have choice. But it started to really bother me because I
felt that my opposition was based more on politics than on sound
educational judgment.
I really believe that it is important to give choice to parents. I
really believe that you have a better public education system if you
give choice to parents. I really believe that the argument that we
would be taking away from the public schools does not add up. If you do
not have students in a public school, you do not have the expense of
having those students in a public school to have to provide an
education for. And every voucher system I have seen and every choice
system I have seen spends less on the student in a private setting or
parochial setting than it spends if they were in the public school
system. So the school systems in the public sector gain from it. They
do not have to educate that student at a cost greater than the amount
of money that is being given to the private or parochial school.
Another factor that impacts me is that I always hear politicians, of
which I am one, and proud to be, talk about the need to make sure that
we do not
[[Page H7975]]
have choice in public schools and a number of them send their kids to
private schools. I have never quite understood this issue between rich
and poor. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle sometimes say
that we on the Republican side of the aisle want to focus on the
wealthy and not those who do not have wealth. Yet we are giving those
who do not have wealth an opportunity to do what rich folks do, but
somehow then it is not allowed. I strongly oppose taking this money
out. I strongly oppose the Norton amendment.
I strongly support what the gentleman from Virginia has done. I am
very proud of what my chairman has done. He recognizes that in
Washington, D.C. the government, the Federal Government, functions like
a State functions. We have an obligation to improve the school system
in Washington, D.C. We spend a fortune on schools in Washington, D.C.
We give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Washington school
system. We are not shortchanging the Washington school system as is
implied by some. We are merely saying, why not try out $10 million
extra dollars, and they are extra dollars, they would not be in the
budget unless they were for this program only, and see its impact.
I have come to the conclusion that the opponents of choice, the
supporters of the Norton amendment and the opponents of the Davis
amendment, fear one thing. They fear that it is going to work. They
fear that their arguments against this program simply will be found to
be fallacious.
I have another sense. It is such a small amount relatively, why not
give it a chance? Let us say I am wrong. Let us just say others of us
are wrong. But the bottom line for me is I believe in accountability, I
believe in choice, I believe in contrast, I believe in having different
models in play to see how they work and what works. And I would like
for the poor people, those with the least amount of resources in
Washington, D.C., to have some of the same choices that some of the
wealthy folks in Washington, D.C. have. Oppose the Norton amendment. I
support strongly the Davis amendment. I thank him for offering it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Congresswoman Norton's
amendment.
We all know too many kids in our Nation's capital are not getting the
education they need and deserve. Many students in the District lack
basic language and math skills. Standardized test scores remain
stagnant for D.C. public schools, and the average SAT score is more
than 200 points below the national average. Additionally, the National
Assessment of Educational Process just released a study which showed
the District's school children were ranked as the worst readers in the
country.
The D.C. Choice Program would provide scholarships of up to $7,500 to
eligible students to cover the cost of tuition, fees, and
transportation expenses. These scholarships are assistance to the
students, and not the schools. And because all funding for the
scholarship program comes from new funds, no public, private or charter
school will be drained of its funding.
It is time to give parents of these children what every parent
wants--the opportunity to give their child the best education possible.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Chairman Davis' amendment
to a School Choice program in D.C.
Too many kids in our Nation's capital are not getting the education
they need and deserve. There is little doubt that D.C. public schools
are in serious crisis, but it is not a crisis by a lack of resources.
D.C. public schools spend more per pupil than surrounding school
districts in Virginia and Maryland. Clearly, alternatives to increased
funding should be tested. By promoting a competitive model, all schools
will be forced to improve academically, provide better quality
services, and create an administrative structure that operates
efficiently.
I oppose directly spending federal tax dollars on private schools.
But, just as I support providing Pell Grants to college students for
use at the university of their choice--public or private, including
religious schools--I also support school choice programs that provide
parents with similar choices for their elementary and secondary school
children.
Opponents of school choice argue such a proposal could drain public
schools of money and students. I think they're dead wrong, but there's
a simple way for us to see. Why not establish a handful of
demonstration projects that will help determine whether school choice
improves our education system? If the projects are unsuccessful, we
will terminate them. But if the programs are successful, they can and
should be expanded.
The D.C. Choice Program would provide scholarships of up to $7,500 to
eligible students to cover the cost of tuition, fees, and
transportation expenses, if any. The scholarship would be considered
assistance to the students and not the schools. In order to ensure
accountability, an evaluation would be conducted that would consider
the impact and academic achievement attained by the program.
The goal of school choice in the District of Columbia is to be an
addition, not a subtraction. We all want the District's education
system to improve, and this amendment will provide what every parent
wants--the opportunity to give their children the best education
possible.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of the Norton amendment, in opposition to vouchers
as is evidenced also by support of the League of United Latin American
Citizens, one of the largest national Hispanic organizations in the
country in opposition to vouchers.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again. School districts across our Nation
are burdened with large unfunded No Child Left Behind Act mandates at
the very same time when school budgets are being cut because of the
weakness of the national economy. And what is the Republican plan to
solve this? Vouchers.
That is right; the Republican leadership is in effect using the
District of Columbia as a testing ground for a policy that they dare
not test on their own constituents.
And they're doing this against the will of the majority of the city's
elected officials and residents, who argue that vouchers violate home
rule and siphon much-needed funding from D.C.'s public schools.
Like most of our districts, D.C. is experiencing huge cuts in its
public school budgets because of the weak economy. In fact, this year
the District's schools are facing a $40 million cut. If Congress
imposes vouchers on the city, an additional $25 million in federal and
local per pupil funding will be lost. That is a heavy price to pay for
unwanted and unnecessary vouchers.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that all of us here can agree that all
students in the District of Columbia's public schools deserve a quality
education, but voucher plans most certainly do nothing to accomplish
this. Instead, voucher plans constitute just one more drain on public
funds--away from the public schools where they are really needed. Even
Mayor Williams conditioned his support for vouchers on providing more
money for public schools, which this bill does not.
Earlier this week, I sent to my colleagues a statement by the League
of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) opposing private school
vouchers and highlighting their belief that more funding for public
schools is needed. As Rick Dovalina, the National President of LULAC,
stated, ``As it is, we don't believe current resources will be enough
to meet the No Child Left Behind Act's goals.''
Instead, vouchers will send these much needed funds to schools that
do not have to meet the accountability standards established by the
heralded and greatly under-funded No Child Left Behind Act.
As some of you may know, D.C. officials and residents already have
their own options to traditional public schools, including a large
number of charter schools, transformation schools, and out-of-boundary
school attendance.
Mr. Chairman, we would all insist that the decision of our districts
concerning our own children and schools should be respected. The
decisions of the majority of elected officials and residents in the
District are entitled to the same respect. I urge all my colleagues to
vote against the imposition of vouchers and in support of Congresswoman
Norton's amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Norton amendment and in strong
opposition to the D.C. Davis voucher amendment for education. I am not
against the Davis amendment because it only affects a small number of
students. I am not against it because it is supposed to be
experimental. I am not against it because it was introduced by my
namesake and chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, a
committee on which I serve, for he is indeed an honorable man and I
respect and appreciate his leadership.
However, Mr. Chairman, my father used to tell us that fool me once,
shame on you; fool me twice, shame on
[[Page H7976]]
me. And when I hear my colleagues and others talk about the great gift
that this is to the poor children and the disadvantaged children of
Washington, D.C., I am reminded of my mother who used to tell us to
always look a gift horse in the mouth. And when I look at this voucher
gift, I see a trick. I see subterfuge. I see us backdooring our way
into further destabilization of public education. I see us undermining
the principle that all children should have the right and the
opportunity to get a good common school education. And since there is
so much wrong with public education, since there is so much wrong with
public schools, let us fix it and let us fix them.
Instead of trying to voucherize our way out of failing situations,
why do we not fix the schools that we have got? Why do we not fix old,
dilapidated and crumbling schools? Why do we not pay teachers an
adequate and decent salary? Why not adequately prepare teachers so that
they can really know how to teach? Why not put adequate materials in
classrooms? Why not provide equal funding for all of our public schools
so that every child will have an optimal opportunity to learn, to
develop, to achieve, and to excel?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame
on me. I am afraid that this amendment will become part of a sinister
plot to undermine public education. This is part of a message to those
who want to isolate children and take us back to the dark days of
segregation and unequal opportunity. This amendment is like manna to
those who want to disorganize teachers and bust unions.
{time} 1230
Yes, it is D.C. today. It is Chicago tomorrow; St. Louis, New
Orleans, Los Angeles next week. Then it is all over America. And so Mr.
Chairman, the message of this amendment goes far beyond Washington,
D.C. and it is not good for America. I urge that we take into
consideration the needs of all the children, and if we are serious
about the children of Washington, D.C., then we should be serious about
the children all over America and adequately fund public education so
that every child has his and her opportunity to achieve.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the voucher provisions that
poison this D.C. Appropriations bill and to support the Norton
amendment. If we pass this bill without the Norton amendment, we will
be approving vouchers at the Federal level. We will be paving the way
for the demise of our public education system, and we will be hampering
our students' ability to succeed.
In short, we will undermine what is really one of the fundamental
pillars of American democracy, a top-quality free public education that
is a fundamental right for all American children. Privatizing public
education is not the American way and you know it. It is wrong to be
redistributing Federal money to private schools when public schools are
facing teacher shortages, record-high student enrollments and dealing
with subpar facilities and infrastructure. And yes, we must help
rebuild schools in Iraq, but we must also invest in our own public
schools in our own country.
This bill will also compromise the civil rights of our students. Even
though vouchers would provide public money, private schools are not
bound by civil rights provisions that govern our schools. Private
schools can discriminate in admissions and employment on the basis of
religion. Moreover, if we do give this money away, we lose the ability
to account for the spending of that money. If voucher schools do not
adopt academic standards, provide highly qualified teachers, or
administer the assessments required of public schools, we have no
recourse under this proposal.
Perhaps this explains why there has been so little success with
voucher programs. Every serious study of voucher programs has found
that vouchers do not improve student achievement. Objective studies
funded by the Wisconsin and Ohio legislatures have found that voucher
students perform no better than comparable students in other public
schools.
The bottom line is that for every dollar we put into vouchers, we
will be draining, draining, our public schools of the very life blood
that makes it possible for us to have schools at the highest possible
level, schools that educate all young Americans. And we will be putting
lots of dollars, $10 million for the District, and that is just a
start. If we ever went to a national voucher program, of course, which
this sets the stage for, one estimate claims that it could cost about
$73 billion. And that is just wrong. Instead of diverting money to
private and religious schools, we must demonstrate a stronger
commitment to safer schools, smaller classrooms, higher standards,
technology and more accountability of all. That will benefit the public
school system and it will not bankrupt it. We must put resources into
our low-achieving schools so that they become high-performing schools.
So I urge the Members to vote for the Norton amendment, and I thank her
for her leadership. And I urge the Members to vote against the bill if
it retains, however, the voucher provision which jeopardizes the future
of public education.
This bill, with the voucher provision, really could be the beginning
of the end of public education not only in the District of Columbia but
in our entire country.
Again, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) for bringing this forward, and I urge support of her amendment.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
and in opposition to the imposition of vouchers on the people of the
District of Columbia.
The facts are my colleagues, according to the National Coalition for
Public Education, that vouchers are neither needed nor wanted in the
District of Columbia. The majority of D.C. elected officials has
written to Congress opposing vouchers. It is only that three officials
abruptly changed their anti-voucher position without any public debate
and now supports vouchers but they clearly don't speak for the majority
of District citizens on the issue.
Vouchers as a means of improving public education in fact does the
opposite. They send public funds to private schools while doing nothing
to improve public schools, where the majority of DC students are
enrolled. Additionally, programs to improve student achievement in the
District have been implemented and are working and should be expanded.
Meanwhile, the academic achievement of African American students who
used privately funded vouchers to attend private schools in the
District was no different than that of students who remained in public
school, according to the GAO.
The amendment of the gentlelady from the District of Columbia would
remove the $10 million in funding for D.C. vouchers that would be
sought to be to authorized via a separate amendment. I urge my
colleagues to support the gentlelady's amendment.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my colleague and friend from the District of Columbia, Mrs.
Eleanor Holmes Norton. We must strike the voucher provisions from the
D.C. Appropriations bill.
This body has held a number of votes on vouchers on a national level.
We have rejected them every time because we know that vouchers for
private schools for a few children will not fulfill our responsibility
to provide a quality education for all children. This bill will only
allow 2 percent of the children in the District to take advantage of
the program. The other 98 percent will remain in the public school
system, which will not be held harmless in funding if enrollments drop.
In this bill we are not really even helping a few children. The money
available per student is far short of the average cost of private
school tuition in the District of Columbia. That means the families who
can already afford to send their children to private school will do so,
but low-income children will be forced to remain in inadequately funded
public schools.
In addition, private schools have no obligation to accept special
needs or minority students, nor are they required to follow the
guidelines of the No Child Left Behind Act or the Individuals With
Disabilities Act.
It is the height of arrogance that this body would seek to impose on
the District of Columbia something that we have rejected for the rest
of the nation.
I urge my colleagues to reject any attempt to privatize public
education in the District of Columbia.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on this
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H7977]]
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) will be postponed.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer an amendment, but I
decided due to the lack of time not to offer it at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS
OPERATING EXPENSES
Division of Expenses
The following amounts are appropriated for the District of
Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund
of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically
provided: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, except as provided in section 450A of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.50a)
and section 117 of this Act, the total amount appropriated in
this Act for operating expenses for the District of Columbia
for fiscal year 2004 under this heading shall not exceed the
lesser of the sum of the total revenues of the District of
Columbia for such fiscal year or $6,326,138,000 (of which
$3,832,734,000 shall be from local funds, $1,568,734,000
shall be from Federal grant funds, $910,904,000 shall be from
other funds, and $13,766,000 shall be from private funds), in
addition, $59,800,000 from funds previously appropriated in
this Act as Federal payments: Provided further, That this
amount may be increased by proceeds of one-time transactions,
which are expended for emergency or unanticipated operating
or capital needs: Provided further, That such increases shall
be approved by enactment of local District law and shall
comply with all reserve requirements contained in the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act as amended by this Act:
Provided further, That the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia shall take such steps as are necessary
to assure that the District of Columbia meets these
requirements, including the apportioning by the Chief
Financial Officer of the appropriations and funds made
available to the District during fiscal year 2004, except
that the Chief Financial Officer may not reprogram for
operating expenses any funds derived from bonds, notes, or
other obligations issued for capital projects.
Governmental Direction and Support
Governmental direction and support, $284,415,000 (including
$206,825,000 from local funds, $57,440,000 from Federal grant
funds, and $20,150,000 from other funds), in addition,
$10,000,000 from funds previously appropriated in this Act
under the heading ``Federal Payment to the Chief Financial
Officer of the District of Columbia'': Provided, That not to
exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of the
Council of the District of Columbia, $2,500 for the City
Administrator, and $2,500 for the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer shall be available from this appropriation
for official purposes: Provided further, That any program
fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be available
for the payment of expenses of the debt management program of
the District of Columbia: Provided further, That no revenues
from Federal sources shall be used to support the operations
or activities of the Statehood Commission and Statehood
Compact Commission: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia shall identify the sources of funding for Admission
to Statehood from its own locally generated revenues:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, or Mayor's Order 86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the
Office of the Chief Technology Officer's delegated small
purchase authority shall be $500,000: Provided further, That
the District of Columbia government may not require the
Office of the Chief Technology Officer to submit to any other
procurement review process, or to obtain the approval of or
be restricted in any manner by any official or employee of
the District of Columbia government, for purchases that do
not exceed $500,000: Provided further, That not to exceed
$25,000, to remain available until expended, of the funds in
the District of Columbia Antitrust Fund established pursuant
to section 820 of the District of Columbia Procurement
Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. Law 6-85; D.C. Official Code,
sec. 2-308.20) is hereby made available for the use of the
Office of the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia
in accordance with the laws establishing this fund.
Economic Development and Regulation
Economic development and regulation, $276,647,000
(including $53,336,000 from local funds, $91,077,000 from
Federal grant funds, $132,109,000 from other funds, and
$125,000 from private funds), of which $15,000,000 collected
by the District of Columbia in the form of BID tax revenue
shall be paid to the respective BIDs pursuant to the Business
Improvement Districts Act of 1996 (D.C. Law 11-134; D.C.
Official Code, sec. 2-1215.01 et seq.), and the Business
Improvement Districts Amendment Act of 1997 (D.C. Law 12-26;
D.C. Official Code, sec. 2-1215.15 et seq.): Provided, That
such funds are available for acquiring services provided by
the General Services Administration: Provided further, That
Business Improvement Districts shall be exempt from taxes
levied by the District of Columbia.
Public Safety and Justice
Public safety and justice, $745,958,000 (including
$716,715,000 from local funds, $10,290,000 from Federal grant
funds, $18,944,000 from other funds, and $9,000 from private
funds), in addition, $1,300,000 from funds previously
appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Federal Payment
to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council'': Provided,
That not to exceed $500,000 shall be available from this
appropriation for the Chief of Police for the prevention and
detection of crime: Provided further, That the Mayor shall
reimburse the District of Columbia National Guard for
expenses incurred in connection with services that are
performed in emergencies by the National Guard in a militia
status and are requested by the Mayor, in amounts that shall
be jointly determined and certified as due and payable for
these services by the Mayor and the Commanding General of the
District of Columbia National Guard: Provided further, That
such sums as may be necessary for reimbursement to the
District of Columbia National Guard under the preceding
proviso shall be available from this appropriation, and the
availability of the sums shall be deemed as constituting
payment in advance for emergency services involved.
Public Education System
(including transfers of funds)
Public education system, including the development of
national defense education programs, $1,157,841,000
(including $962,941,000 from local funds, $156,708,000 from
Federal grant funds, $27,074,000 from other funds, $4,302,000
from private funds, and not to exceed $6,816,000, to remain
available until expended, from the Medicaid and Special
Education Reform Fund established pursuant to the Medicaid
and Special Education Reform Fund Establishment Act of 2002
(D.C. Law 14-190; D.C. Official Code 4-204.51 et seq.)), in
addition, $17,000,000 from funds previously appropriated in
this Act under the heading ``Federal Payment for Resident
Tuition Support'' and $4,500,000 from funds previously
appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Federal Payment
for Public School Facilities'', to be allocated as follows:
(1) District of columbia public schools.--$870,135,000
(including $738,444,000 from local funds, $114,749,000 from
Federal grant funds, $6,527,000 from other funds, $3,599,000
from private funds, and not to exceed $6,816,000, to remain
available until expended, from the Medicaid and Special
Education Reform Fund established pursuant to the Medicaid
and Special Education Reform Fund Establishment Act of 2002
(D.C. Law 14-190; D.C. Official Code 4-204.51 et seq.)), in
addition, $4,500,000 from funds previously appropriated in
this Act under the heading ``Federal Payment for Public
School Facilities'' shall be available for District of
Columbia Public Schools: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, rule, or regulation, the evaluation
process and instruments for evaluating District of Columbia
Public School employees shall be a non-negotiable item for
collective bargaining purposes: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the
education of any nonresident of the District of Columbia at
any District of Columbia public elementary or secondary
school during fiscal year 2004 unless the nonresident pays
tuition to the District of Columbia at a rate that covers 100
percent of the costs incurred by the District of Columbia
that are attributable to the education of the nonresident (as
established by the Superintendent of the District of Columbia
Public Schools): Provided further, That notwithstanding the
amounts otherwise provided under this heading or any other
provision of law, there shall be appropriated to the District
of Columbia Public Schools on July 1, 2004, an amount equal
to 10 percent of the total amount provided for the District
of Columbia Public Schools in the proposed budget of the
District of Columbia for fiscal year 2005 (as submitted to
Congress), and the amount of such payment shall be chargeable
against the final amount provided for the District of
Columbia Public Schools under the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2005: Provided further, That not to
exceed $2,500 for the Superintendent of Schools shall be
available from this appropriation for official purposes:
Provided further, That the District of Columbia Public
Schools shall submit to the Board of Education by January 1
and July 1 of each year a Schedule A showing all the current
funded positions of the District of Columbia Public Schools,
their compensation levels, and indicating whether the
positions are encumbered: Provided further, That the Board of
Education shall approve or disapprove each Schedule A within
30 days of its submission and provide the Council of the
District of Columbia a copy of the Schedule A upon its
approval.
(2) State education office.--$38,752,000 (including
$9,959,000 from local funds, $28,617,000 from Federal grant
funds, and $176,000 from other funds), in addition,
$17,000,000 from funds previously appropriated in this Act
under the heading ``Federal Payment for Resident Tuition
Support'' shall be available for the State Education Office:
Provided, That of the amounts provided to the State Education
Office, $500,000 from local funds shall remain available
until June 30, 2005 for an audit of the student enrollment of
each District of Columbia Public School and of each District
of Columbia public charter school.
[[Page H7978]]
(3) District of columbia public charter schools.--
$137,531,000 from local funds shall be available for District
of Columbia a public charter schools: Provided, That there
shall be quarterly disbursement of funds to the District of
Columbia public charter schools, with the first payment to
occur within 15 days of the beginning of the fiscal year:
Provided further, That if the entirety of this allocation has
not been provided as payments to any public charter schools
currently in operation through the per pupil funding formula,
the funds shall be available as follows: (1) the first
$3,000,000 shall be deposited in the Credit Enhancement
Revolving Fund established pursuant to section 603(e) of the
Student Loan Marketing Association Reorganization Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009; 20 U.S.C. 1155(e)); and
(2) the balance shall be for public education in accordance
with section 2403(b)(2) of the District of Columbia School
Reform Act of 1995 (D.C. Official Code, sec. 38-
1804.03(b)(2)): Provided further, That of the amounts made
available to District of Columbia public charter schools,
$25,000 shall be made available to the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer as authorized by section 2403(b)(6) of the
District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (D.C. Official
Code, sec. 38-1804.03(b)(6)): Provided further, That $660,000
of this amount shall be available to the District of Columbia
Public Charter School Board for administrative costs:
Provided further, That notwithstanding the amounts otherwise
provided under this heading or any other provision of law,
there shall be appropriated to the District of Columbia
public charter schools on July 1, 2004, an amount equal to 25
percent of the total amount provided for payments to public
charter schools in the proposed budget of the District of
Columbia for fiscal year 2005 (as submitted to Congress), and
the amount of such payment shall be chargeable against the
final amount provided for such payments under the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005.
(4) University of the district of columbia.--$80,660,000
(including $48,656,000 from local funds, $11,867,000 from
Federal grant funds, $19,434,000 from other funds, and
$703,000 from private funds) shall be available for the
University of the District of Columbia: Provided, That this
appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the
education of nonresidents of the District of Columbia at the
University of the District of Columbia, unless the Board of
Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia
adopts, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, a
tuition rate schedule that will establish the tuition rate
for nonresident students at a level no lower than the
nonresident tuition rate charged at comparable public
institutions of higher education in the metropolitan area:
Provided further, That notwithstanding the amounts otherwise
provided under this heading or any other provision of law,
there shall be appropriated to the University of the District
of Columbia on July 1, 2004, an amount equal to 10 percent of
the total amount provided for the University of the District
of Columbia in the proposed budget of the District of
Columbia for fiscal year 2005 (as submitted to Congress), and
the amount of such payment shall be chargeable against the
final amount provided for the University of the District of
Columbia under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
2005: Provided further, That not to exceed $2,500 for the
President of the University of the District of Columbia shall
be available from this appropriation for official purposes.
(5) District of columbia public libraries.--$28,287,000
(including $26,750,000 from local funds, $1,000,000 from
Federal grant funds, and $537,000 from other funds) shall be
available for the District of Columbia Public Libraries:
Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 for the Public Librarian
shall be available from this appropriation for official
purposes.
(6) Commission on the arts and humanities.--$2,476,000
(including $1,601,000 from local funds, $475,000 from Federal
grant funds, and $400,000 from other funds) shall be
available for the Commission on the Arts and Humanities.
Human Support Services
(including transfer of funds)
Human support services, $2,360,067,000 (including
$1,030,223,000 from local funds, $1,247,945,000 from Federal
grant funds, $24,330,000 from other funds, $9,330,000 from
private funds, and $48,239,000, to remain available until
expended, from the Medicaid and Special Education Reform Fund
established pursuant to the Medicaid and Special Education
Reform Fund Establishment Act of 2002 (D.C. Act 14-403)):
Provided, That the funds available from the Medicaid and
Special Education Reform Fund are allocated as follows: not
more than $18,744,000 for Child and Family Services, not more
than $7,795,000 for the Department of Human Services, and not
more than $21,700,000 for the Department of Mental Health:
Provided further, That $27,959,000 of this appropriation, to
remain available until expended, shall be available solely
for District of Columbia employees' disability compensation:
Provided further, That $7,500,000 of this appropriation, to
remain available until expended, shall be deposited in the
Addiction Recovery Fund, established pursuant to section 5 of
the Choice in Drug Treatment Act of 2000 (D.C. Law 13-146;
D.C. Official Code, sec. 7-3004) and used exclusively for the
purpose of the Drug Treatment Choice Program established
pursuant to section 4 of the Choice in Drug Treatment Act of
2000 (D.C. Law 13-146; D.C. Official Code, sec. 7-3003):
Provided further, That no less than $2,000,000 of this
appropriation shall be available exclusively for the purpose
of funding the pilot substance abuse program for youth ages
14 through 21 years established pursuant to section 4212 of
the Pilot Substance Abuse Program for Youth Act of 2001 (D.C.
Law 14-28; D.C. Official Code, sec. 7-3101): Provided
further, That $4,500,000 of this appropriation, to remain
available until expended, shall be deposited in the Interim
Disability Assistance Fund established pursuant to section
201 of the District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982
(D.C. Law 4-101; D.C. Official Code, sec. 4-202.01), to be
used exclusively for the Interim Disability Assistance
program and the purposes for that program set forth in
section 407 of the District of Columbia Public Assistance Act
of 1982 (D.C. Law 13-252; D.C. Official Code, sec. 4-204.07):
Provided further, That not less than $640,531 of this
appropriation shall be available exclusively for the purpose
of funding the Burial Assistance Program established by
section 1802 of the Burial Assistance Program Reestablishment
Act of 1999 (D.C. Law 13-38; D.C. Official Code, sec. 4-
1001).
Public Works
Public works, including rental of one passenger-carrying
vehicle for use by the Mayor and three passenger-carrying
vehicles for use by the Council of the District of Columbia
and leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles, $327,046,000
(including $308,028,000 from local funds, $5,274,000 from
Federal grant funds, and $13,744,000 from other funds):
Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for
collecting ashes or miscellaneous refuse from hotels and
places of business.
Cash Reserve
For the cumulative cash reserve established pursuant to
section 202(j)(2) of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (D.C.
Official Code, sec. 47-392.02(j)(2)), $50,000,000 from local
funds.
Emergency and Contingency Reserve Funds
For the emergency reserve fund and the contingency reserve
fund under section 450A of the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act (D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.50a), such amounts from
local funds as are necessary to meet the balance requirements
for such funds under such section.
Repayment of Loans and Interest
For payment of principal, interest, and certain fees
directly resulting from borrowing by the District of Columbia
to fund District of Columbia capital projects as authorized
by sections 462, 475, and 490 of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code, secs. 1-204.62, 1-204.75,
and 1-204.90), $311,504,000 from local funds: Provided, That
for equipment leases, the Mayor may finance $14,300,000 of
equipment cost, plus cost of issuance not to exceed two
percent of the par amount being financed on a lease purchase
basis with a maturity not to exceed five years.
Payment of Interest on Short-Term Borrowing
For payment of interest on short-term borrowing, $3,000,000
from local funds.
Certificates of Participation
For principal and interest payments on the District's
Certificates of Participation, issued to finance the ground
lease underlying the building located at One Judiciary
Square, $4,911,000 from local funds.
Settlements and Judgments
For making refunds and for the payment of legal settlements
or judgments that have been entered against the District of
Columbia government, $22,522,000 from local funds: Provided,
That this appropriation shall not be construed as modifying
or affecting the provisions of section 103 of this Act.
Wilson Building
For expenses associated with the John A. Wilson building,
$3,704,000 from local funds.
Workforce Investments
For workforce investments, $22,308,000 from local funds, to
be transferred by the Mayor of the District of Columbia
within the various appropriation headings in this Act for
which employees are properly payable.
Non-Departmental Agency
To account for anticipated costs that cannot be allocated
to specific agencies during the development of the proposed
budget, $19,639,000 (including $11,455,000 from local funds
and $8,184,000 from other funds): Provided, That anticipated
employee health insurance cost increases and contract
security costs, $5,799,000 from local funds.
Pay-As-You-Go Capital
For Pay-As-You-Go Capital funds in lieu of capital
financing, $11,267,000 from local funds, to be transferred to
the Capital Fund, subject to the Criteria for Spending Pay-
as-You-Go Funding Amendment Act of 2003, approved by the
Council of the District of Columbia on 1st reading, May 6,
2003 (title 25 of Bill 15-218): Provided, That pursuant to
this Act, there are authorized to be transferred from Pay-As-
You-Go Capital funds to other headings of this Act, such sums
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.
Tax Increment Financing Program
For a Tax Increment Financing Program, $1,940,000 from
local funds.
Medicaid Disallowance
For making refunds associated with disallowed Medicaid
funding, an amount not to
[[Page H7979]]
exceed $57,000,000 in local funds, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That funds are derived from a transfer
from the funds identified in the fiscal year 2002
comprehensive annual financial report as the District of
Columbia's Grants Disallowance balance.
Emergency Planning and Security Costs
From funds previously appropriated in this Act under the
heading ``Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security
Costs in the District of Columbia'', $15,000,000.
Family Literacy
From funds previously appropriated in this Act under the
heading ``Federal Payment for the Family Literacy Program'',
$2,000,000.
Scholarship Program
From funds previously appropriated in this Act under the
heading ``Federal Payment for a District of Columbia
Scholarship Program'', $10,000,000.
ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS
Water and Sewer Authority
For operation of the Water and Sewer Authority,
$259,095,000 from other funds, of which $18,692,000 shall be
apportioned for repayment of loans and interest incurred for
capital improvement projects and payable to the District's
debt service fund.
For construction projects, $199,807,000, to be distributed
as follows: $99,449,000 for the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant, $16,739,000 for the sewer program,
$42,047,000 for the combined sewer program, $5,993,000 for
the stormwater program, $24,431,000 for the water program,
and $11,148,000 for the capital equipment program; in
addition, $35,000,000 from funds previously appropriated in
this Act under the heading ``Federal Payment to the District
of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority'': Provided, That the
requirements and restrictions that are applicable to general
fund capital improvement projects and set forth in this Act
under the Capital Outlay appropriation account shall apply to
projects approved under this appropriation account.
Washington Aqueduct
For operation of the Washington Aqueduct, $55,553,000 from
other funds.
Stormwater Permit Compliance Enterprise Fund
For operation of the Stormwater Permit Compliance
Enterprise Fund, $3,501,000 from other funds.
Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund
For the Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund,
established by the District of Columbia Appropriation Act,
1982, for the purpose of implementing the Law to Legalize
Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and Raffles for
Charitable Purposes in the District of Columbia (D.C. Law 3-
172; D.C. Official Code, sec. 3-1301 et seq. and sec. 22-1716
et seq.), $242,755,000 from other funds: Provided, That the
District of Columbia shall identify the source of funding for
this appropriation title from the District's own locally
generated revenues: Provided further, That no revenues from
Federal sources shall be used to support the operations or
activities of the Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board.
Sports and Entertainment Commission
For the Sports and Entertainment Commission, $13,979,000
from local funds.
District of Columbia Retirement Board
For the District of Columbia Retirement Board, established
pursuant to section 121 of the District of Columbia
Retirement Reform Act of 1979 (D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-
711), $13,895,000 from the earnings of the applicable
retirement funds to pay legal, management, investment, and
other fees and administrative expenses of the District of
Columbia Retirement Board: Provided, That the District of
Columbia Retirement Board shall provide to the Congress and
to the Council of the District of Columbia a quarterly report
of the allocations of charges by fund and of expenditures of
all funds: Provided further, That the District of Columbia
Retirement Board shall provide the Mayor, for transmittal to
the Council of the District of Columbia, an itemized
accounting of the planned use of appropriated funds in time
for each annual budget submission and the actual use of such
funds in time for each annual audited financial report.
Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund
For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund,
$69,742,000 from other funds.
National Capital Revitalization Corporation
For the National Capital Revitalization Corporation,
$7,849,000 from other funds.
Capital Outlay
(including rescissions)
For construction projects, an increase of $1,004,796,000,
of which $601,708,000 shall be from local funds, $46,014,000
from Highway Trust funds, $38,311,000 from the Rights-of-way
funds, $218,880,000 from Federal grant funds, and a
rescission of $99,884,000 from local funds appropriated
under this heading in prior fiscal years, for a net amount
of $904,913,000, to remain available until expended; in
addition, $8,000,000 from funds previously appropriated in
this Act under the heading ``Federal Payment for Capital
Development in the District of Columbia'' and $4,300,000
from funds previously appropriated in this Act under the
heading ``Federal Payment for the Anacostia Waterfront
Initiative'': Provided, That funds for use of each capital
project implementing agency shall be managed and
controlled in accordance with all procedures and
limitations established under the Financial Management
System: Provided further, That all funds provided by this
appropriation title shall be available only for the
specific projects and purposes intended.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. Whenever in this Act, an amount is specified
within an appropriation for a particular purposes or objects
of expenditure, such amount, unless otherwise specified,
shall be considered as the maximum amount that may be
expended for said purpose or object rather than an amount set
apart exclusively therefor.
Sec. 102. Appropriations in this act shall be available for
expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of
organizations concerned with the work of the District of
Columbia government, when authorized by the Mayor: Provided,
That in the case of the Council of the District of Columbia,
funds may be expended with the authorization of the Chairman
of the Council.
Sec. 103. There are appropriated from the applicable funds
of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for
making refunds and for the payment of legal settlements or
judgments that have entered against the District of Columbia
government: Provided, That nothing contained in this section
shall be construed as modifying or affecting the provisions
of section 11(c)(3) of title XII of the District of Columbia
Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947 (D.C. Official Code,
sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
Sec. 104. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly to provided herein.
Sec. 105. No funds appropriated in this Act for the
District of Columbia government for the operation of
educational institutions, the compensation of personnel, or
for other educational purposes may be used to permit,
encourage, facilitate, or further partisan political
activities. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit the
availability of school buildings for the use of any community
or partisan political group during non-school hours.
Sec. 106. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
be made available to pay the salary of any employee of the
District of Columbia government whose name, title, grade, and
salary are not available for inspection by the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate,
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate, and the Council of the District of Columbia, or their
duty authorized representative.
Sec. 107. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no part
of this appropriation shall be used for publicity or
propaganda purposes or implementation of any policy including
boycott designed to support or defeat legislation pending
before Congress or any State legislature.
(b) The District of Columbia may use local funds provided
in this Act to carry out lobbying activities on any matter
other than--
(1) the promotion or support of any boycott; or
(2) statehood for the District of Columbia or voting
representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.
(c) Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit
any elected official from advocating with respect to any of
the issues referred to in subsection (b).
Sec. 108. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act to
the agencies funded by this Act, both Federal and District
government agencies, that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2004, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditures for an
agency through a reprogramming of funds which--
(1) creates new programs;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or responsibility
center;
(3) establishes or changes allocations specifically denied,
limited or increased under this Act;
(4) increases funds or personnel by any means for any
program, project, or responsibility center for which funds
have been denied or restricted;
(5) reestablishes any program or project previously
deferred through reprogramming;
(6) augments any existing program, project, or
responsibility center through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $1,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(7) increases by 20 percent or more personnel assigned to a
specific program, project or responsibility center;
unless the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate are notified in writing 30 days in
advance of the reprogramming.
(b) None the local funds contained in this Act may be
available for obligation or expenditure for an agency through
a transfer of any local funds from one appropriation heading
to another unless the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate are notified in writing
30 days in advance of the transfer, except that in no event
may the amount of any funds transferred exceed four percent
of the local funds in the appropriations.
[[Page H7980]]
Sec. 109. Consistent with the provisions of section 1301(a)
of title 31, United States Code, appropriations under this
Act shall be applied only to the objects for which the
appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 110. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the
provisions of the District of Columbia Government
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Law 2-139;
D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-601.01 et seq.), enacted pursuant
to section 422(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act
(D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204l.22(3)), shall apply with
respect to the compensation of District of Columbia
employees: Provided, That for pay purposes, employees of the
District of Columbia government shall not be subject to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 111. No later than 30 days after the end of the first
quarter of fiscal year 2004, the Mayor of the District of
Columbia shall submit to the Council of the District of
Columbia and the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate the new fiscal year 2004 revenue
estimates as of the end of such quarter. These estimates
shall be used in the budget request for fiscal year 2005. The
officially revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the
midyear report.
Sec. 112. No sole source contract with the District of
Columbia government or any agency thereof may be renewed or
extended without opening that contract to the competitive
bidding process as set forth in section 303 of the District
of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. Law 6-85;
D.C. Official Code, sec. 2-303.03), except that the District
of Columbia government or any agency thereof may renew or
extend sole source contracts for which competition is not
feasible or practical, but only if the determination as to
whether to invoke the competitive bidding process has been
made in accordance with duly promulgated rules and procedures
and has been reviewed and certified by the Chief Financial
Officer of the District of Columbia.
Sec. 113. (a) In the event a sequestration order is issued
pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 after the amounts appropriated to the District of
Columbia for the fiscal year involved have been paid to the
District of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia
shall pay to the Secretary of the Treasury, within 15 days
after receipt of a request therefor from the Secretary of the
Treasury, such amounts as are sequestered by the order:
Provided, That the sequestration percentage specified in the
order shall be applied proportionately to each of the Federal
appropriation accounts in this Act that are not specifically
exempted from sequestration by such Act.
(b) For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, the term ``program, project, and
activity'' shall be synonymous with and refer specifically to
each account appropriating Federal funds in this Act, and any
sequestration order shall be applied to each of the accounts
rather than to the aggregate total of those accounts:
Provided, That sequestration orders shall not be applied to
any account that is specifically exempted from sequestration
by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
Sec. 114. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for
salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the
offices of United States Senator or United States
Representative under section 4(d) of the District of Columbia
Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979 (D.C.
Law 3-171; D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-123).
Sec. 115. None of the funds appropriated under this Act
shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of
the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to
term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape
or incest.
Sec. 116. None of the Federal funds made available in this
Act may be used to implement or enforce the Health Care
Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Official
Code, sec. 32-701 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or
enforce any system of registration of unmarried, cohabiting
couples, including but not limited to registration for the
purpose of extending employment, health, or governmental
benefits to such couples on the same basis that such benefits
are extended to legally married couples.
Sec. 117. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the Mayor, in consultation with the Chief Financial
Officer of the District of Columbia may accept, obligate, and
expend Federal, private, and other grants received by the
District government that are not reflected in the amounts
appropriated in this Act.
(b)(1) No such Federal, private, or other grant may be
accepted, obligated, or expended pursuant to subsection (a)
until--
(A) the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia
submits to the Council a report setting forth detailed
information regarding such grant; and
(B) the Council has reviewed and approved the acceptance,
obligation, and expenditure of such grant.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the Council shall be
deemed to have reviewed and approved the acceptance,
obligation, and expenditure of a grant if--
(A) no written notice of disapproval is filed with the
Secretary of the Council within 14 calendar days of the
receipt of the report from the Chief Financial Officer under
paragraph (1)(A); or
(B) if such a notice of disapproval is filed within such
deadline, the Council does not by resolution disapprove the
acceptance, obligation, or expenditure of the grant within 30
calendar days of the initial receipt of the report from the
Chief Financial Officer under paragraph (1)(A).
(c) No amount may be obligated or expended from the general
fund or other funds of the District of Columbia government in
anticipation of the approval or receipt of a grant under
subsection (b)(2) or in anticipation of the approval or
receipt of a Federal, private, or other grant not subject to
such subsection.
(d) The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia
shall prepare a quarterly report setting forth detailed
information regarding all Federal, private, and other grants
subject to this section. Each such report shall be submitted
to the Council of the District of Columbia and to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate not later than 15 days after the end of the
quarter covered by the report.
Sec. 118. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section,
none of the funds made available by this Act or by any other
Act may be used to provide any officer or employee of the
District of Columbia with an official vehicle unless the
officer or employee uses the vehicle only in the performance
of the officer's or employee's official duties. For purposes
of this paragraph, the term ``official duties'' does not
include travel between the officer's or employee's residence
and workplace, except in the case of--
(1) an officer or employee of the Metropolitan Police
Department who resides in the District of Columbia or is
otherwise designated by the Chief of the Department;
(2) at the discretion of the Fire Chief, an officer or
employee of the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency
Medical Services Department who resides in the District of
Columbia and is on call 24 hours a day;
(3) the Mayor of the District of Columbia; and
(4) the Chairman of the Council of the District of
Columbia.
(b) The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia
shall submit by March 1, 2004, an inventory, as of September
30, 2003, of all vehicles owned, leased or operated by the
District of Columbia government. The inventory shall include,
but not be limited to, the department to which the vehicle is
assigned; the year and make of the vehicle; the acquisition
date and cost; the general condition of the vehicle; annual
operating and maintenance costs; current mileage; and whether
the vehicle is allowed to be taken home by a District
officer or employee and if so, the officer or employee's
title and resident location.
Sec. 119. No officer or employee of the District of
Columbia government (including any independent agency of the
District of Columbia, but excluding the Office of the Chief
Technology Officer, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
of the District of Columbia, and the Metropolitan Police
Department) may enter into an agreement in excess of $2,500
for the procurement of goods or services on behalf of any
entity of the District government until the officer or
employee has conducted an analysis of how the procurement of
the goods and services involved under the applicable
regulations and procedures of the District government would
differ from the procurement of the goods and services
involved under the Federal supply schedule and other
applicable regulations and procedures of the General Services
Administration, including an analysis of any differences in
the costs to be incurred and the time required to obtain the
goods or services.
Sec. 120. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used for purposes of the annual independent audit of the
District of Columbia government for fiscal year 2004 unless--
(1) the audit is conducted by the Inspector General of the
District of Columbia, in coordination with the Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, pursuant to
section 208(a)(4) of the District of Columbia Procurement
Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. Official Code, sec. 2-302.8); and
(2) the audit includes as a basic financial statement a
comparison of audited actual year-end results with the
revenues submitted in the budget document for such year and
the appropriations enacted into law for such year using the
format, terminology, and classifications contained in the law
making the appropriations for the year and its legislative
history.
Sec. 121. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be used by the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel or
any other officer or entity of the District government to
provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action
which seeks to require Congress to provide for voting
representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.
(b) Nothing in this section bars the District of Columbia
Corporation Counsel from reviewing or commenting on briefs in
private lawsuits, or from consulting with officials of the
District government regarding such lawsuits.
Sec. 122. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be used for any program of distributing sterile needles or
syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
(b) Any individual or entity who receives any funds
contained in this Act and who carries out any program
described in subsection (a) shall account for all funds used
for such
[[Page H7981]]
program separately from any funds contained in this Act.
Sec. 123. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used after the expiration of the 60-day period that begins on
the date of the enactment of this Act to pay the salary of
any chief financial officer of any office of the District of
Columbia government (including any independent agency of the
District of Columbia) who has not filed a certification with
the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia that the officer understands the duties and
restrictions applicable to the officer and the officer's
agency as a result of this Act (and the amendments made by
this Act), including any duty to prepare a report requested
either in the Act or in any of the reports accompanying the
Act and the deadline by which each report must be submitted.
The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall
provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate by the 10th day after the end of
each quarter a summary list showing each report, the due
date, and the date submitted to the Committees.
Sec. 124. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to
legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the
possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance
under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any
tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.
(b) The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Initiative of 1998, also known as Initiative 59, approved by
the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 1998,
shall not take effect.
Sec. 125. Nothing in this Act may be construed to prevent
the Council or Mayor of the District of Columbia from
addressing the issue of the provision of contraceptive
coverage by health insurance plans, but it is the intent of
Congress that any legislation enacted on such issue should
include a ``conscience clause'' which provides exceptions for
religious beliefs and moral convictions.
Sec. 126. The Mayor of the District of Columbia shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate, the Committee on Government
Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate quarterly reports
addressing--
(1) crime, including the homicide rate, implementation of
community policing, the number of police officers on local
beats, and the closing down of open-air drug markets;
(2) access to substance and alcohol abuse treatment,
including the number of treatment slots, the number of people
served, the number of people on waiting lists, and the
effectiveness of treatment programs;
(3) management of parolees and pre-trial violent offenders,
including the number of halfway houses escapes and steps
taken to improve monitoring and supervision of halfway house
residents to reduce the number of escapes to be provided in
consultation with the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency for the District of Columbia;
(4) education, including access to special education
services and student achievement to be provided in
consultation with the District of Columbia Public Schools and
the District of Columbia public charter schools;
(5) improvement in basic District services, including rat
control and abatement;
(6) application for and management of Federal grants,
including the number and type of grants for which the
District was eligible but failed to apply and the number and
type of grants awarded to the District but for which the
District failed to spend the amounts received; and
(7) indicators of child well-being.
Sec. 127. No later than 30 calendar days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress, the Mayor, and the Council of the
District of Columbia a revised appropriated funds operating
budget in the format of the budget that the District of
Columbia government submitted pursuant to section 442 of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code, sec.
1-204.42), for all agencies of the District of Columbia
government for fiscal year 2003 that is in the total amount
of the approved appropriation and that realigns all budgeted
data for personal services and other-than-personal-services,
respectively, with anticipated actual expenditures.
Sec. 128. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used to issue, administer, or enforce any order by the
District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights relating to
docket numbers 93-030-(PA) and 93-031-(PA).
Sec. 129. None of the Federal funds made available in this
Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government, except
pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority
provided in, this Act or any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 130. During fiscal year 2004 and any subsequent fiscal
year, in addition to any other authority to pay claims and
judgments, any department, agency, or instrumentality of the
District government may use local funds to pay the settlement
or judgment of a claim or lawsuit in an amount less than
$10,000, in accordance with the Risk Management for
Settlements and Judgments Amendment Act of 2000 (D.C. Law 13-
172; D.C. Official Code, sec. 2-402).
Sec. 131. Notwithstanding any other law, the District of
Columbia Courts shall transfer to the general treasury of the
District of Columbia all fines levied and collected by the
Courts under section 10(b)(1) and (2) of the District of
Columbia Traffic Act (D.C. Official Code, sec. 50-
2201.05(b)(1) and (2)). The transferred funds shall remain
available until expended and shall be used by the Office of
the Corporation Counsel for enforcement and prosecution of
District traffic alcohol laws in accordance with section
10(b)(3) of the District of Columbia Traffic Act (D.C.
Official Code, sec. 50-2201.05(b)(3)).
Sec. 132. During fiscal year 2004 and any subsequent fiscal
year, any agency of the District government may transfer to
the Office of Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining
(OLRCB) such local funds as may be necessary to pay for
representation by OLRCB in third-party cases, grievances, and
dispute resolution, pursuant to an intra-District agreement
with OLRCB. These amounts shall be available for use by OLRCB
to reimburse the cost of providing the representation.
Sec. 133. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be made available to pay--
(1) the fees of an attorney who represents a party in an
action or an attorney who defends an action, including an
administrative proceeding, brought against the District of
Columbia Public Schools under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) in excess
of $4,000 for that action; or
(2) the fees of an attorney or firm whom the Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia determines to
have a pecuniary interest, either through an attorney,
officer or employee of the firm, in any special education
diagnostic services, schools, or other special education
service providers.
(b)(1) The District of Columbia Public Schools shall
increase the amount of local funds it allocates for services
to children under the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act during fiscal year 2004 by the amount of savings
resulting during the year from the restrictions on the
payment of attorney fees under subsection (a), as estimated
and published by the Chief Financial Officer.
(2) The Chief Financial Officer shall make estimates of the
savings described in paragraph (1) on a quarterly basis
during fiscal year 2004, and shall publish the estimates not
later than 10 days after the end of each quarter.
Sec. 134. The Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia shall require attorneys in special education cases
brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in
the District of Columbia to certify in writing that the
attorney or representative rendered any and all services for
which they receive awards, including those received under a
settlement agreement or as part of an administrative
proceeding, under the IDEA from the District of Columbia:
Provided, That as part of the certification, the Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall require
all attorneys in IDEA cases to disclose any financial,
corporate, legal, memberships on boards of directors, or
other relationships with any special education diagnostic
services, schools, or other special education service
providers to which the attorneys have referred any clients as
part of this certification: Provided further, That the Chief
Financial Officer shall prepare and submit quarterly reports
to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives on the certification of and the
amount paid by the government of the District of Columbia,
including the District of Columbia Public Schools, to
attorneys in cases brought under IDEA: Provided further, That
the Inspector General of the District of Columbia may conduct
investigations to determine the accuracy of the
certifications.
Sec. 135. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used to fund or otherwise support the action of District of
Columbia, et al., v. Beretta U.S.A. et al. (Nos. 03-CV-24,
03-CV-38, District of Columbia Court of Appeals).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 52, line 12 be
considered as read, printed in the Record and opened to amendment at
any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Point of Order
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order
against section 119 regarding sole source contracts on the grounds that
this section changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House
rule XXI and is, therefore, legislation included in a general
appropriation bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the
provision is stricken from the bill.
Are there any amendments?
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H7982]]
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia:
Page 52, insert after line 12 the following:
TITLE IV--DC PARENTAL CHOICE
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``DC Parental Choice
Incentive Act of 2003''.
SEC. 402. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Parents are best equipped to make decisions for their
children, including the educational setting that will best
serve the interests and educational needs of their child.
(2) For many parents in the District of Columbia, public
school choice provided for under the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 is inadequate due to capacity constraints within the
public schools. Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, school choice options, in
addition to those already available to parents in the
District of Columbia (such as magnet and charter schools and
open enrollment schools) should be made available to those
parents.
(3) In the most recent mathematics assessment on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
administered in 2000, a lower percentage of 4th-grade
students in DC demonstrated proficiency than was the case for
any State. Seventy-six percent of DC fourth-graders scored at
the ``below basic'' level and of the 8th-grade students in
the District of Columbia, only 6 percent of the students
tested at the proficient or advanced levels, and 77 percent
were below basic. In the most recent NAEP reading assessment,
in 1998, only 10 percent of DC fourth-graders could read
proficiently, while 72 percent were below basic. At the 8th-
grade level, 12 percent were proficient or advanced and 56
percent were below basic.
(4) A program enacted for the valid secular purpose of
providing educational assistance to low-income children in a
demonstrably failing public school system is constitutional
under Zelman v. Simmons-Harris if it is neutral with respect
to religion and provides assistance to a broad class of
citizens who direct government aid to schools solely as a
result of their independent private choices.
SEC. 403. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to provide low-income parents
residing in the District of Columbia, particularly parents of
students who attend elementary or secondary schools
identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316), with
expanded opportunities for enrolling their children in
higher-performing schools in the District of Columbia.
SEC. 404. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
(a) Authority.--From funds appropriated to carry out this
title, the Secretary shall award grants on a competitive
basis to eligible entities with approved applications under
section 405 to carry out activities to provide eligible
students with expanded school choice opportunities. The
Secretary may award a single grant or multiple grants,
depending on the quality of applications submitted and the
priorities of this title.
(b) Duration of Grants.--The Secretary may make grants
under this section for a period of not more than 5 years.
SEC. 405. APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--In order to receive a grant under this
title, an eligible entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may require.
(b) Contents.--The Secretary may not approve the request of
an eligible entity for a grant under this title unless the
entity's application includes--
(1) a detailed description of--
(A) how the entity will address the priorities described in
section 406;
(B) how the entity will ensure that if more eligible
students seek admission in the program than the program can
accommodate, eligible students are selected for admission
through a random selection process which gives weight to the
priorities described in section 406;
(C) how the entity will ensure that if more participating
eligible students seek admission to a participating school
than the school can accommodate, participating eligible
students are selected for admission through a random
selection process;
(D) how the entity will notify parents of eligible students
of the expanded choice opportunities;
(E) the activities that the entity will carry out to
provide parents of eligible students with expanded choice
opportunities through the awarding of scholarships under
section 407(a);
(F) how the entity will determine the amount that will be
provided to parents for the tuition, fees, and transportation
expenses, if any;
(G) how the entity will seek out private elementary and
secondary schools in the District of Columbia to participate
in the program, and will ensure that participating schools
will meet the applicable requirements of this title and
provide the information needed for the entity to meet the
reporting requirements of this title;
(H) how the entity will ensure that participating schools
are financially responsible;
(I) how the entity will address the renewal of scholarships
to participating eligible students, including continued
eligibility; and
(J) how the entity will ensure that a majority of its
voting board members or governing organization are residents
of the District of Columbia; and
(2) an assurance that the entity will comply with all
requests regarding any evaluation carried out under section
409.
SEC. 406. PRIORITIES.
In awarding grants under this title, the Secretary shall
give priority to applications from eligible entities who will
most effectively--
(1) give priority to eligible students who, in the school
year preceding the school year for which the eligible student
is seeking a scholarship, attended an elementary or secondary
school identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316);
(2) target resources to students and families that lack the
financial resources to take advantage of available
educational options;
(3) provide students and families with the widest range of
educational options; and
(4) serve students of varying ages and grade levels.
SEC. 407. USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Scholarships.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and (3), a
grantee shall use the grant funds to provide eligible
students with scholarships to pay the tuition, fees, and
transportation expenses, if any, to enable them to attend the
District of Columbia private elementary or secondary school
of their choice. Each grantee shall ensure that the amount of
any tuition or fees charged by a school participating in the
grantee's program under this title to an eligible student
participating in the program does not exceed the amount of
tuition or fees that the school customarily charges to
students who do not participate in the program.
(2) Payments to parents.--A grantee shall make scholarship
payments under the program under this title to the parent of
the eligible student participating in the program, in a
manner which ensures that such payments will be used for the
payment of tuition, fees, and transportation expenses (if
any), in accordance with this title.
(3) Amount of assistance.--
(A) Varying amounts permitted.--Subject to the other
requirements of this section, a grantee may award
scholarships in larger amounts to those eligible students
with the greatest need.
(B) Annual limit on amount.--The amount of assistance
provided to any eligible student by a grantee under a program
under this title may not exceed $7,500 for any academic year.
(b) Administrative Expenses.--A grantee may use not more
than 3 percent of the amount provided under the grant each
year for the administrative expenses of carrying out its
program under this title during the year, including--
(1) determining the eligibility of students to participate;
(2) providing information about the program and the schools
involved to parents of eligible students;
(3) selecting students to receive scholarships;
(4) determining the amount of scholarships and issuing them
to eligible students;
(5) compiling and maintaining financial and programmatic
records; and
(6) providing funds to assist parents in meeting expenses
that might otherwise preclude the participation of their
child in the program.
SEC. 408. NONDISCRIMINATION.
(a) In General.--A school participating in any program
under this title shall not discriminate on the basis of race,
color, national origin, or sex in participating in the
program.
(b) Applicability and Construction With Respect to
Discrimination on the Basis of Sex.--
(1) Applicability.--Notwithstanding subsection (a) or any
other provision of law, it shall not be considered
discrimination on the basis of sex for a school that is
operated by, supervised by, controlled by, or connected to a
religious organization to take sex into account to the extent
that failing to do so would be inconsistent with the
religious tenets or beliefs of the school.
(2) Single-sex schools, classes, or activities.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a) or any other provision of law,
a parent may choose and a school may offer a single-sex
school, class, or activity.
(3) Construction.--With respect to discrimination on the
basis of sex, nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to
require any person or public or private entity to provide or
pay, or to prohibit any such person or entity from providing
or paying, for any benefit or service, including the use of
facilities, related to an abortion. Nothing in the preceding
sentence shall be construed to permit a penalty to be imposed
on any person or individual because such person or individual
is seeking or has received any benefit or services related to
a legal abortion.
(c) Children With Disabilities.--Nothing in this title may
be construed to alter or modify the provisions of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
(d) Religiously Affiliated Schools.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a school participating
[[Page H7983]]
in any program under this title which is operated by,
supervised by, controlled by, or connected to, a religious
organization may employ persons of the same religion to the
extent determined by that school to promote the religious
purpose for which the school is established or maintained.
(2) Religious purposes.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, funds made available under this title may
be used for religious educational purposes, and no
participating school shall be required to remove religious
art, icons, scriptures, or other symbols. A participating
school may retain religious terms in its name, select its
board members on a religious basis, and include religious
references in its mission statements and other chartering or
governing documents.
(e) Rule of Construction.--A scholarship (or any other form
of support provided to parents of eligible students) under
this title shall be considered assistance to the student and
shall not be considered assistance to the school that enrolls
the eligible student. The amount of any scholarship (or other
form of support provided to parents of an eligible student)
under this title shall not be treated as income of the
parents for purposes of Federal tax laws or for determining
eligibility for any other Federal program.
SEC. 409. EVALUATIONS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Duties of secretary.--The Secretary shall--
(A) conduct an evaluation using the strongest possible
research design for determining the effectiveness of the
programs funded under this title that addresses the issues
described in paragraph (2); and
(B) disseminate information on the impact of the programs
in increasing the student academic achievement of
participating students, as well as other appropriate measures
of student success, and on the impact of the programs on
students and schools in the District of Columbia.
(2) Issues to be evaluated.--The issues described in this
paragraph include the following:
(A) A comparison of the academic achievement of students
who participate in the programs funded under this title with
the academic achievement of students of similar backgrounds
who do not participate in such programs.
(B) The success of the programs in expanding choice options
for parents.
(C) The reasons parents choose for their children to
participate in the programs.
(D) A comparison of the retention rates, dropout rates, and
(if appropriate) graduation and college admission rates of
students who participate in the programs funded under this
title with the retention rates, dropout rates, and (if
appropriate) graduation and college admission rates of
students of similar backgrounds who do not participate in
such programs.
(E) The impact of the program on students and public
elementary and secondary schools in the District of Columbia.
(F) A comparison of the safety of the schools attended by
students who participate in the programs and the schools
attended by students who do not participate in the programs.
(G) Such other issues as the Secretary considers
appropriate for inclusion in the evaluation.
(b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations, Education and the Workforce, and
Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Appropriations, Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, and Governmental Affairs of the Senate--
(1) annual interim reports not later than December 1 of
each year for which a grant is made under this title on the
progress and preliminary results of the evaluation of the
programs funded under this title; and
(2) a final report not later than 1 year after the final
year for which a grant is made under this title on the
results of the evaluation of the programs funded under this
title.
(c) Public Availability.--All reports and underlying data
gathered pursuant to this section shall be made available to
the public upon request, in a timely manner following
submission of the applicable report under subsection (b),
except that personally identifiable information shall not be
disclosed or made available to the public.
(d) Limit on Amount Expended.--The amount expended by the
Secretary to carry out this section for any fiscal year may
not exceed 3 percent of the total amount appropriated to
carry out this title for the fiscal year.
SEC. 410. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Activities Reports.--Each grantee receiving funds under
this title during a year shall submit a report to the
Secretary not later than July 30 of the following year
regarding the activities carried out with the funds during
the preceding year.
(b) Achievement Reports.--
(1) In general.--In addition to the reports required under
subsection (a), each grantee shall, not later than September
1 of the year during which the second academic year of the
grantee's program is completed and each of the next 2 years
thereafter, submit a report to the Secretary regarding the
data collected in the previous 2 academic years concerning--
(A) the academic achievement of students participating in
the program;
(B) the graduation and college admission rates of students
who participate in the program, where appropriate; and
(C) parental satisfaction with the program.
(2) Prohibiting disclosure of personal information.--No
report under this subsection may contain any personally
identifiable information.
(c) Reports to Parent.--
(1) In general.--Each grantee shall ensure that each school
participating in the grantee's program under this title
during a year reports at least once during the year to the
parents of each of the school's students who are
participating in the program on--
(A) the student's academic achievement, as measured by a
comparison with the aggregate academic achievement of other
participating students at the student's school in the same
grade or level, as appropriate, and the aggregate academic
achievement of the student's peers at the student's school in
the same grade or level, as appropriate; and
(B) the safety of the school, including the incidence of
school violence, student suspensions, and student expulsions.
(2) Prohibiting disclosure of personal information.--No
report under this subsection may contain any personally
identifiable information, except as to the student who is the
subject of the report to that student's parent.
(d) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations, Education and the Workforce,
and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Appropriations, Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, and Governmental Affairs of the Senate an annual
report on the findings of the reports submitted under
subsections (a) and (b).
SEC. 411. OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS.
(a) Admission of Eligible Students.--Each school choosing
to participate in a program funded under this title shall
accept any participating eligible student on a religious-
neutral basis, except that if the school has more
participating eligible students seeking admission than it can
accommodate, the school shall accept participating eligible
students through a religious-neutral, random selection
process, consistent with section 405(b)(1)(C).
(b) Requests for Data and Information.--Each school
participating in a program funded under this title shall
comply with all requests for data and information regarding
evaluations conducted under section 409(a).
(c) Rules of Conduct and Other School Policies.--Subject to
section 408, a participating school may require eligible
students to abide by any rules of conduct and other
requirements applicable to all other students at the school.
SEC. 412. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title:
(1) Elementary school.--The term ``elementary school'' has
the meaning given that term in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means
any of the following:
(A) An educational entity of the District of Columbia
Government.
(B) A nonprofit organization.
(C) A consortium of nonprofit organizations.
(3) Eligible student.--The term ``eligible student'' means
a student who is a resident of the District of Columbia and
who comes from a household whose income does not exceed 185
percent of the poverty line applicable to a family of the
size involved.
(4) Parent.--The term ``parent'' has the meaning given that
term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(5) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' has the
meaning given that term in section 9101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(6) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' has
the meaning given that term in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
SEC. 413. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may
be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 25,
2003, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and a Member opposed
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from New Jersey
(Chairman Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner). This creates an historic opportunity for families and
students of the District of Columbia. This amendment can make a huge
difference in the lives of thousands of low-income children from
nonperforming schools in the District. It represents a shot at a better
education and, of course in turn, a better life.
[[Page H7984]]
The condition of the D.C. public schools, I think, is clearly
documented. We have talked about this earlier today in the debate. It
has concerned me since the first day I came to Congress as chairman of
the District of Columbia Subcommittee. And while we have made strides
in so many areas of the city since that time and some in education, the
quality of educational opportunities should continue to worry all of
us.
One thing is clear, I think both sides agree to this: Too many
children in our Nation's capital are not getting the education that
they need and that they deserve. Lower-income families concerned about
the quality of safety of their children in the D.C. public schools
should not have to resign themselves to sending their kids to
underperforming schools where students are not adequately motivated to
perform.
Over the past decade, Congress has spent considerable time and
resources working with the District to reform its education system, but
the ability of D.C. schools to meet key performance goals has long been
plagued by financial mismanagement and a host of other problems, which
means just throwing money at this problem alone is not going to solve
it. Despite concerned efforts by local officials to improve the public
school system, and there has been some progress, we are not getting the
kind of progress in improving academic performance that ought to be
available to these kids.
I have traditionally opposed Federal dollars going to private schools
because I think Federal dollars ought to be targeted to the public
schools. Of course, in this case, we give the dollars directly to the
parents who make those choices. But for the District, which does not
have a State government to rely on, as we take a look at other voucher
programs around the country, cities work in concert with States. The
District does not have a State. So I think we have an obligation here
to answer the calls from the mayor, the chairman of the school board
and the Washington Post and other advocates for D.C. children, and we
have to ask this question: Would not more choices funded by new Federal
dollars provide a needed alternative for low-income children attending
low-performing schools?
Our committee heard testimony on this before we gave authorization
authority. The mayor was asked, specifically, if he had this money for
vouchers, if he could use it for something else, would he not rather
use it for the public school system? He said no. He said we need this
alternative as well.
It stands on its own and this is additional money that would not be
available to the District of Columbia public schools were it not for
this amendment. I have received calls from parents who are frustrated,
angry, and distraught by their children's school situation. These
parents have attended our hearings. They have danced and wept when our
committee approved school choice legislation. But I think it is time to
do more than just sympathize. This is a moral imperative.
The school choice debate should not be about politics or interest
groups. We should have an honest appraisal of the state of affairs in
our public schools and about offering an alternative for students and
parents, and what is being proposed is not a mandate. It is a choice.
The goal of school choice for the city is addition, not subtraction. We
all want the city's education system to improve, and I hope that this
is a short-term effort to do something about it. The fact is the
monopoly of the D.C. public school system is harming kids, not helping
them. It is time to shake up that monopoly.
This amendment expands educational opportunity to city students in
underperforming elementary and secondary schools, underperforming
schools. Other schools, kids do not get the aid. The choice program
would be established through a competitive process, administered by the
Department of Education, to ensure that the public or private entity
that administers the initiative would be dedicated and capable of
carrying out a top-notch program.
And there are reporting requirements, many to be written later by the
Department of Education, but the legislation here, I think, has
criteria that it sets out that need to be met in terms of going on to
college, performance levels, tests, and the like. It would provide
scholarships of up to $7,500 to eligible students to cover the cost of
tuition fees and transportation expenses. It would be considered
assistance to the students, not the schools. In order to assure
accountability, an evaluation is conducted that would consider the
impact in academic achievement attained by the program.
This legislation is a result of a lot of negotiation and consultation
with city officials, elected city officials, with the administration
and committees with key jurisdiction in Congress. For the first time
ever, the mayor, the elected Democratic mayor of the District of
Columbia, has come to the conclusion that `` . . . if done effectively,
this program would provide even more choices for primarily low-income
families who currently do not have the same freedom of choice enjoyed
by their affluent counterparts.''
Enhancing educational quality in the city is a critical component of
maintaining the positive momentum we have seen in recent years under
the stewardship of Mayor Williams and the Council. It is our duty to
provide resources so that the kids can have a brighter future. This is
not a panacea, but it is a significant step in the right direction and,
hopefully, one that will not be needed indefinitely.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I say to my friends
on the other side that we are going to disagree about this, but I think
we want the same thing for all these kids, eventually. We will be
working together on a number of other issues, but it is my considered
judgment, having given a lot of time and thought to this, that this is
probably the best thing we can offer, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, just a factual question, on page 9, the
language at the bottom where it refers to religiously affiliated
schools, is my reading of this to say that this bill would allow for
religiously oriented schools to utilize these scholarships that are
being provided?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, is there some list of which religiously
affiliated schools would be eligible?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, they have to be accredited.
They have to meet D.C. standards, number one.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, that is my question. I would not understand
that there are any accrediting procedures for religious schools now in
the District. And if there are, I would be interested in knowing that.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Department of
Education would carry the list, it is my understanding.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, so it is the gentleman's intention that
there would be created, because there is none now, lists of what would
be approved, accredited religious schools?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. And
regardless of how this comes out, I hope we would work with the
gentleman.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to be argumentative.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman raised
the point of what happened in Florida, and we do not want that to
happen. I think that is very clear.
Mr. FATTAH. Well, as I would understand the facts at the moment, that
is why I am asking, there is no accrediting process for religiously-
affiliated schools K to 12 in the District today, and there is none
that is created by your language?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the
Department of Education will carry the accredited list at this point,
in terms of eligible schools. Not just any school willy-nilly is
eligible.
Mr. FATTAH. So the gentleman understands that there is a list or that
somewhere in this language it gives the Department authority to create
such a list?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Correct. That is my understanding.
{time} 1245
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. That is my understanding.
[[Page H7985]]
Mr. FATTAH. Which one is it, the former or the latter?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. The Secretary of Education is the one I
think that would set that standard.
Mr. FATTAH. So are there certain religious affiliations that would be
acceptable and others that would not?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. To my understanding, it is not a
discrimination based on that, but they would have to meet certain
academic performance standards. This was drafted, of course, looking at
the court cases in line to make sure this met the requirements.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer the gentleman's question, but let
me stop at this time and make sure we can get our advocates up, and
maybe we can further this discussion if time permits.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
recognized for 20 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia is not only a good personal
friend, he is a good professional friend, and he has always been a good
friend of the District. More often than not we are on this floor
arguing on the same side, fighting for what the majority in the
District wants, including the majority of the members of the council
and the majority of the elected members of the school board. This
happens to be an exception, but we are going to keep on working
together because we are so close.
It is ironic, I must say to my good friend though, that he has got a
legislative rider on here. He made two points of order today. He is
regularly on the floor opposing Committee on Government Reform riders,
but he has taken this bill to the Committee on Rules in order to allow
himself to put a rider on this bill. This bill legislates on an
appropriations bill.
But I really want to use my time not to rehash the arguments we have
heard, but to make some corrections based on what I have heard.
My good friend from Virginia earlier said during the debate that the
District spent more than Arlington and Fairfax, and some others have
gotten up to say that we spend more than any other State. I keep
hearing that. It keeps being said. It is false.
I want to read from an official schools document: ``Despite
differences in student needs, even with Federal funds included, the
D.C. public schools spend less per pupil than Arlington or Alexandria,
and not much more than Montgomery or Fairfax.''
Remember, Montgomery and Fairfax spend a whole lot of money on
children that are not at all disadvantaged, and huge numbers of mine
are severely disadvantaged.
The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania said that our schools would
actually be better off without these 2,000 children. Actually, we will
lose $25 million in combined Federal and local per-pupil funding
because schools are funded on a per-pupil basis, and that is in
addition to the $40 million that the schools are already being cut this
year.
It certainly is not true that we are saying to our children, and I
would certainly never say it, Hey, wait until the schools are fixed.
Indeed, we applaud the options that are available to our public
schools; the largest number of charter schools in the country, the
transformation schools, which have seen a breakthrough in test scores
that no public or private school has ever done for our most needy
children, our out-of-boundary possibilities for our children.
I applaud especially the work of the Washington Scholarship Fund.
That is for now. The Washington Scholarship Fund, which with private
money as I speak is doing exactly what this bill will do, but probably
will not do it if this bill passes, because Federal money will replace
their private money that they have been using, much to their credit, to
send our children to local private schools.
We want our own choices. That is all we are asking. You take your
choices, the ones you have in your districts. Leave us to our own
choices. Do not accuse us of giving no choices to our children.
The most important thing I could say at this time, though, would be
to correct the notion that the so-called three-sector approach, which
developed only after there was great criticism of vouchers in the
District of Columbia, somehow amounts to an equivalence of funding for
the charter and public schools with vouchers.
Please hear me on this: this Davis bill has 5 years of authorization
for vouchers. What happens for the public and charter schools is this
year, on a one-time-only appropriation, we throw some money at the
public schools in order to ease the way for vouchers.
I was able to get money for our charter schools, a great deal more
than this last year, without having to pay a price in vouchers. Next
year I guess we will have to come begging at the table because, unlike
the voucher money, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) had the
opportunity to add public schools in a bill I offered in committee that
would have put us on the same footing, but we are not on the same
footing. We have got 5 years of vouchers, one-time-only money for the
public schools, in this appropriation. That is the most problematic
money the Congress ever has to offer.
We have been demonizing the public schools of the District of
Columbia. Be my guest. But if you expect that sending our children to
private schools will correct their problems, then you need to look at
the GAO study of 10 years of experience in all the schools that have
used vouchers. What they have found is there is no significant
difference between the children using the vouchers in their performance
on tests and the children who are in the public schools.
Thirty-seven States have turned down vouchers. If you vote for the
Davis amendment, you are voting for a private school voucher and a
voucher only. We do not think that that vote will pass silently into
the night. We believe that a vote for vouchers anywhere in the country,
especially in this economic climate, will be heard and felt throughout
the country, and especially in your own districts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, since I was first elected to Congress, I have supported
school choice for this city, and now as Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations subcommittee on the District of Columbia, I am excited
to be in a position to make this program a reality for the children and
the parents of the District of Columbia, working with the gentleman
from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Boehner).
Mr. Chairman, I ask all Members to support the Davis-Frelinghuysen-
Boehner amendment and the underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, since I was first elected to Congress, I have supported
school choice for this city. And now as Chairman of the DC
Appropriations Committee, I am excited to be in a position to make this
program a reality for the children and parents of the District of
Columbia.
The President requested funding for a Choice Incentive Fund within
the U.S. Department of Education, of which a portion of the funds would
be used for school choice programs in the District. Thanks to Chairman
Regula, I was able to provide $10 million to expand school choice in
the District. I am further pleased to report that this proposal has the
full support of Mayor Williams, Chairman of the Committee on Education,
Libraries and Recreation, Kevin Chavous, and President of the School
Board, Peggy Cooper-Cafritz.
Throughout the year, I have worked closely with my colleague and
friend, Chairman Tom Davis, who chairs the Authorizing Committee that
has jurisdiction on this issue, the Government Reform Committee and
John Boehner, Chairman of Committee on Education and the Workforce to
advance this Presidential initiative.
We agreed to move the school choice initiative forward in our
respective Committees. Chairman Davis has successfully moved the DC
Parental Choice Incentive Act through his Committee. And in my bill, we
have provided the actual funding.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would unite these two initiatives
together under one bill bringing us a step closer to making expanded
[[Page H7986]]
school choice a reality for those that so desperately want and need it.
While we are all supportive of the District Public School System, and
we recognize the great progress of the city's charter schools and
transformation schools, we believe that even more students can be
helped by the additional option. And we are providing new dollars that
add, not subtract, from either the DC public or charter schools funding
sources.
What is important here is the quality and value of education for
every child in this city. And the statistics from the Department of
Education on District continue to show disturbing results in student
performance on reading, writing, math and other core academics. The
need for significant improvements is clear.
The bottom line is that these children will be helped by giving
parents more choices for educating their children. Many parents are
hopeful that we will act.
One of the arguments the opposing side will make is that this bill
does not provide funding for the three-pronged approach the District
wants. While that is true, it is not my intention that that be the case
when we come out of conference with the Senate. Due to the fiscal
constraints of this bill, we were only able to provide for DC
Scholarships, but the Senate bill includes additional funding for both
public and charter schools as well. I support the Mayor's approach and
will work with Chairman Young towards a conference allocation that is
sufficient to address all three sectors of education in the city.
I hope members will join with me and support of the leadership of
this great city.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have good friends on both sides of
the aisle and both sides of this position. What does me hurt is the
partisanship, some of the partisanship, not from all Members, that I
hear from Iraq to the White House politics to the rest of it on an
issue.
If we disagree on this issue, that is fine. I personally truly
believe that this gives some of our children an opportunity to get out
of schools that are crime- and drug-ridden and are being left behind.
Not many, if any, Members of Congress, either the House or the other
body, have their children in D.C. public schools. Most are in private
schools. And yet there are some that would deny poor children, poor
families to have the same rights that Members of Congress and other
people that are affluent have. I think that is wrong.
The other fallacy is that we are cutting public spending. We are not.
Look where we have come from. When many of us dedicated ourselves to
improving education, the roofs were so poor they were controlled by the
fire department in D.C. Schools had to be delayed. We improved that. We
put forth charter schools. We put forth a summer school where we had
thousands of children volunteer to go to summer school in D.C., not
because they had to, but because they did not want to be left behind.
And there is another phase of that that we disagree on. But please do
not say we are trying to damage education, because we believe from the
bottom of our hearts that this is helping children.
Take a look at the board of education. They had a board of education
appointed by Marion Berry where one of the members was in charge of
finance and never had an accounting course, never finished high school,
but was put there because of a political appointment.
We changed all of that. We have a Mayor, we have a superintendent, we
have an active, professional school board, and our schools are
improving. Yes, we have got a long way to go, and we have got to work
together on both sides of this issue; and I dedicate myself to working
with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the
ranking member on that. But please do not say that we are trying to
damage education. We disagree on the value of this particular
amendment. I personally believe in many areas it will work.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to enter into a colloquy
with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and return to my
question.
As I understand the language, and I read it, it says that any
religiously affiliated school could get dollars under this program and
it can be controlled and connected to a religious organization and it
can promote its religious purpose; and then it goes on to say it could
hire any number of people who follow their religious beliefs and that
they deem necessary and that they can include religious references in
its mission statement and other governing documents.
All I am trying to determine is whether or not that is completely
wide open, or whether there is a list of some type that either already
is approved or would be approved of which religiously affiliated
entities could operate schools in the District.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge there is no
exclusion of any religion, or inclusion. The Secretary of Education is
the one that would be able to come forward with a list and make the
determination. As the gentleman knows, there have been a number of
court decisions along this line, and we feel this meets the mandate of
the courts, and it has to meet a certain level.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, all of the lawsuits on
this matter, or at least the vast majority, have been about the Federal
prison system, in which the courts have been, I would say, very lenient
in determining what is a religion, and all manner of groups with any
number of, I think, what most of us would consider problematic beliefs
have been determined to be religions for purposes under the definition
by the Federal courts. So would that be the same in terms of how this
would operate?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, we leave discretion with the Secretary of Education. Let me
say there have been a number of title VII cases that do deal with
education, and that would be the criteria that the Department would
meet. But we did not try to micromanage the criteria. They also have to
meet certain educational standards, and that would really be the
controlling criteria, is meeting educational standards.
Mr. FATTAH. I read the list of the educational standards, all related
to education, and I think the gentleman has done a good job on that. I
am just concerned about this particular issue, and I guess so that the
record can be clear, your position is that there is no restriction in
the authorizing language as you have written it?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. That is correct. We leave that to the
Department of Education.
Mr. FATTAH. I want to enter into the Record a report from California,
not the earlier report I referenced from Florida, of a school that was
set up under the laws of California that received millions and millions
of dollars to educate children, and it has now been determined that
they were funded and founded and set up by a Pakistani terrorist
organization.
I want to enter this into the Record, because I think what the
concern is here is that if those who believe in witchcraft, those who
have antisocial racial views, any number of people who claim to be a
religion can set up a religiously affiliated school and benefit through
the largesse of this $10 million and pretend that they are educating
children, segregate them, as I understand under the gentleman's
authorizing language by sex or any other manner, hire only those who
believe what they believe, discriminate against anyone else, and
determine their own curriculum, that I have a concern about, even if we
agree that this was the way to go, that this kind of loophole would be
useful to us at this time in our Nation's capital.
[From ABC News I-Team]
Baladullah
Nov. 8.--The ABC7 News I-Team has learned that millions of
your tax dollars are headed this year, to a group that is
connected to an organization founded by a Pakistani
terrorist. You are paying for a new system of charter
schools, started by the members of an Islamic village in the
Sierra foothills called ``Baladullah.'' Dan Noyes has Part
Two of this I-Team investigation.
The ABC7 News I-Team has learned that millions of your tax
dollars are headed this year to a group that is connected to
an organization founded by a Pakistani terrorist. You are
paying for a new system of charter schools, started by the
members of an Islamic village in the Sierra foothills called
``Baladullah.'' Dan Noyes has Part Two of this I-Team
investigation.
Some of these charter schools are here in the Bay Area. We
want to be clear from the
[[Page H7987]]
start that this is not a story about the Muslim faith. It is
about one group of people living just a few hours from the
Bay Area, who have ties to a mysterious Pakistani sheik.
The U.S. State Department has listed Pakistani sheik Sayyid
Mubarik Jilani as the founder of a terrorist group that has
committed dozens of crimes across the country--firebombings,
fraud, and assassinations. And in a recruitment tape, Jilani
offers to train any American who will join his cause.
Sheik Jilani: ``We shall be helping Muslims wherever they
are oppressed, and we wish that you'd extend your cooperation
with us in any manner suitable to the cause.''
Jilani also established ``Muslims of America'' to help
spread his version of Islam. Late last year, the group moved
its headquarters to a village in the Sierra foothills called
Baladullah--along with the mobile homes, the airstrip, and
the U-Haul franchise.
Male Teacher: ``We move the decimal point in the divisor.
How many times to the right?''
The compound has a new charter school. It's a way for the
state to provide an alternative form of education, paid for
with your tax dollars.
Sharon Brooks, Assistant Administrator: ``We're teaching
our children because we want them to be doctors and lawyers
and judges and architects. We don't want them to be ditch
diggers.''
Student: ``The administrators would not discuss their
connection to Muslims of America or Sheik Jilani. So, we
asked their attorney about the charter school.''
Doug Hurt: ``It is one small site, it has 25-50 kids at any
given time.''
Dan: ``Is that it?''
Dan: ``How about the eleven other campuses for the
charter?''
Doug Hurt: ``What interest is that of yours?''
This year--under the name ``Gateway Academy''--the village
opened twelve charter schools up and down the state . . .
including one in Oakland and in Sunnyvale. All the schools
are chartered through the Fresno Unified School District,
where officials had expected Gateway to run just a few
schools in the area. All those satellite schools came as a
surprise.
Jill Marmolejo, Fresno Unified: ``They're running along
doing their business and then informing us after the fact, so
we told them in the future, before you open any satellites
you have to get it approved through us.''
Jill Marmolejo says it appears Gateway Academy has done
nothing illegal by opening schools across the state, but it
has put a tremendous strain on Fresno School District
inspectors. They now have to travel hundreds of miles, to
check up on the schools.
Jill Marmolejo: ``We're not specialists in Oakland, we're
not specialists in Pomona, so we're relying on them to do the
right things.''
And to do the right thing with millions of your tax
dollars. Gateway Academy reports it has 1,200 students now,
so they will receive more than $5.5 million this year. And
that's on top of more than a million they spent last year,
setting up the charter schools.
Jonathan Bernstein: ``We have serious concerns about this
group.''
Researchers at the Anti-Defamation League have been
tracking Sheik Jilani for almost 20 years, and now, they are
worried about Baladullah's charter schools. They have no
evidence that your tax dollars are headed from a village in
Tulare County . . . to the terrorist's base in Pakistan. But,
in general, the ADL is concerned about where the charter
school money is going.
Jonathan Bernstein: ``We feel like these funds can land up
in the hands of extremists.''
The lawyer for Baladullah says the people here are not
extremists. And, he denied any direct connection between the
village and Jilani--or even the group the sheik founded,
Muslims of America.
Doug Hurt: ``In that they are Muslims and they live in
America, I would say so, but are they formally connected, is
there an entity, no, not as far as I'm aware.''
But the president and treasurer of Muslims of America list
their home address as Baladullah. And the secretary of
Muslims of America--Khadijah Ghafur--is also the president of
the charter schools. That connection between the schools and
Jilani's group troubles the principal at the branch in
Sunnyvale.
Mazhar Jamil: ``I am surprised. This is the first time I
have heard anything like this.''
Mazhar Jamil has run a school on this site for six years--
he has just signed on with Baladullah's Gateway Academy. But
now, he says he has to rethink that relationship . . .
because of the ties between the schools, the village, and the
sheik.
Mazhar Jamil: ``We have no connection or desire to be
affiliated with anything like that.''
We want to emphasize that Muslims of America has not
appeared on any terrorist watch list. Sheik Jilani has, along
with his group al-Fuqra. Gateway Academy is the only charter
school in the Fresno district that has more than one
location, and most of them are outside the county.
As a result of our reports, Fresno Assemblyman Mike Briggs
plans to introduce a new bill, so that a group can open
charter schools ``only'' in the county where they live.
____
[From the Naples Daily News, July 18, 2003]
Private School With Ties to Alleged Terrorist Gets State Money
Tampa.--Senate Democrats urged Gov. Jeb Bush on Thursday to
cut off payment to a school co-founded by a professor accused
of being the North American leader of a worldwide terrorist
organization.
The school received $350,000 last year through a state
program that pays private school tuition for some students.
A February grand jury indictment against Sami Al-Arian, the
alleged leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and seven
others says the school was used as a base of support for the
organization.
The indictment said the purpose of the organization was
``to assist its engagement in, and promotion of, violent
attacks designed to thwart the Middle East Peace Process.''
It said the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is responsible for 100
murders in Israel and its territories.
Al-Arian, who is being held in jail without bail and denies
any connections to terrorism, co-founded the school in 1992
and served as its director and chairman of its board.
The school's treasurer, Sameeh Hammoudeh, also was indicted
and is being held in jail without bond. He and Al-Arian
allegedly encouraged people who wanted to send money to
Palestinians to write checks to their school, The Palm Beach
Post reported in its Thursday editions.
Last year, the 300-student Islamic Academy of Florida
received more than 50 percent of its revenue from the state
program, Florida PRIDE, which uses corporate donations to pay
for poor students to attend private schools.
``The disclosures that more than $300,000 of this money
went last year to a school suspected of terrorist ties raises
the frightening specter that Florida's taxpayers may be
unwittingly funding extremist organizations intent on the
destruction of our nation and its allies,'' Senate Democratic
Leader Ron Klein and Senator Dave Aronberg wrote in their
letter to Gov. Jeb Bush.
Denise Lasher, spokeswoman for Florida PRIDE, said
officials conducted an independent audit of the school after
the indictment was released and found no misuse of funds and
no connection between the scholarship money and terrorist
activity.
She said the school received more than $300,000 in federal
grants for computers and its free- and reduced-price school
lunch program.
``It was unfortunate that there was someone at the school
accused of doing something illegal, but that doesn't mean the
school has done something illegal,'' she said Thursday.
But although Florida PRIDE found that all of its
scholarship money was going to the school, Hammoudeh was paid
for his services as school treasurer, and the indictment
states that school supplies and equipment were used in the
Jihad operation. It is unknown whether Al-Arian was being
paid.
Corporations that donate to the program receive a dollar-
for-dollar tax break. The program gave out nearly $50 million
in scholarships last year.
Since the program began, large corporations such as WCI
Communities Inc., Gulf Power Co., Florida Power & Light and
Verizon Wireless have donated to the program, but how much
and to which program is not public information.
Critics of the corporate tax credit scholarship program are
concerned that there is no government oversight of the
schools that take the money. In their letter to Bush, Klein
and Aronberg called for a review of the program and the
schools.
Under the May 2001 law, the Florida Department of Education
cannot dictate curriculum or monitor how students are
progressing academically.
But Lasher insisted the schools teachers and students are
top notch academically.
Senate President Jim King, R-Jacksonville, jokingly said in
May that he could start a school for witches under the law
and receive corporate tax credit scholarships.
``The intent of this program was to help poor kids. The
intent was never to make opportunistic entrepreneurs
wealthy,'' said King, who also ordered a study of the
program.
Despite the accountability concerns, Bush remained a
supporter, saying last week that it was a ``proven success,''
based on the students receiving the scholarships.
Ahmed Bedier, spokesman for the Muslim advocacy group
Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the Tampa school
is well respected. He noted that the University of South
Florida is also mentioned in the indictment.
But USF, where Al-Arian was a professor and Hammoudeh was
an instructor, is not listed as one of the bases of support
for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Administrators at the Islamic Academy did not return phone
calls Thursday.
{time} 1300
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's
concern. Every school has to meet the nondiscrimination provisions that
are currently in the law as well, if that gives the gentleman some
level of comfort.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield for 10 seconds
on that point. The gentleman says here in section 9, notwithstanding
any other provision of the law, the school could employ, the
participating school may employ anybody that they believe----
[[Page H7988]]
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the gentleman
to let me get through my speakers and then we can continue the
colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Davis
amendment and, more importantly, for the children of America.
We have had school choice in this country as long as we have had
schools, and it is called money. If you have enough money you can
choose where your children go to school, the family can choose, and
without it the choice is made for the child. Unfortunately, students
stuck in substandard public schools receive inadequate education. The
harsh reality is that the lower the level of an individual's education
achievement, the lower their income earning potential will be.
Study after study in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, has shown that given
the opportunity to attend better schools, even if only for a few years,
children improve their math and reading scores. And in both public and
nonpublic schools they both improve when you introduce competition.
Increasing a student's educational choices means increasing that
student's future job choices.
As a psychologist and a person who has spent 25 years working with
children, I call upon this Congress to focus on the needs of children.
The city is working to fix the problems and I commend the district's
local leaders for advocating on behalf of children. However,
comprehensive change does not happen overnight and children do not have
time to wait. New school administrators, new school board members, new
curriculum, more teacher training, takes time and these children do not
have time to wait. Every day that goes by with a child stuck in an
ineffective school is one day too many. Every day a D.C. parent has to
send their children to a poor-performing school is another missed
opportunity for those children to get a quality education, and the
children do not have time to wait.
We have an obligation to these children to provide something that
works, while at the same time helping public schools. We believe we
would be derelict in our duties as Members of Congress if we continue
to make children wait too long.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank and congratulate my friend
from Virginia because I think this is one of the most important
amendments we will debate this entire year. This is a tremendous
opportunity for us to give a little bit of freedom to the people who
clearly need it the most.
The fact is the Washington, D.C. public school system is not up to
par. We know that. The Washington, D.C. school system spends more money
per student than almost any other school district in America. Test
scores are routinely towards the lower end of the spectrum of test
scores across America. We all know this. In fact, we, my colleagues,
affluent people in this community, we know it and we act accordingly;
because in disproportionate number, what we do is we send our kids to
the private schools. Democrats, Republicans, Congressmen and
Congresswomen, Senators, administration officials, we send our kids to
the private schools. Why do we do that? Because they are better schools
and because we can afford it and because we want to give our kids the
best possible opportunity in life.
And how dare we deny that same opportunity to people who just do not
have the same level of income that we have? How dare we deny these kids
the one chance they are ever going to have in life to build the best,
most solid educational foundation they can to create the opportunities
that they deserve for their futures? I say we dare not deny them this
opportunity. Give these kids in the D.C. school system, give them hope,
give them a chance and do it by giving their parents a choice.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), one of the leaders on the original
underlying bill.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
There has been a discussion about who wants these vouchers. Is there
anybody who wants them? I can tell you I just left a meeting in the
Rayburn Building, just a few yards away, where there are a few dozen
D.C. parents who want these vouchers, who are waiting, pleading, hoping
that the vote is right today. One of them gave me this letter written
by a little girl named Lapria Johnson. She is 8 years old. She was born
as what they call a drug baby. Her mother took drugs while she was
pregnant. Lapria was born and her grandmother was told that she would
never read.
This is a letter that she just wrote: ``My name is Lapria and I go to
Holy Temple Christian Academy. The Washington Scholarship Fund is the
only way I can read. I am 8 years old. I have a lot of problems I was
born with. Public school said I could not read. I read and my math is
great. My handwriting is not so good. But I have an A in reading and an
A in math.''
I can tell you that her handwriting is better than mine and she is
one that will benefit from this. There are kids all over like Lapria
that will benefit from this if we will simply let them. We need to let
them.
Washington Scholarship
My name is Lapria and I go to Holy Temple Christian
Academy. W.SF. is the only way I can read. I am 8 years old I
have a lot of problems I was born with. public school said I
would not read. I read and my, my math is great my
handwriting is not so good but I have A in reading and A im
math
Lapria Johnson.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and of
this legislation. I just want everyone to know the experience that I
had sitting on the committee when the parents and the children were in
the audience watching what we did, and to experience the eyes of those
children begging us to give them this chance, and those mothers and
grandmothers who were crying tears when they saw that they were going
to have the opportunity to send their children to schools that would be
effective.
It is imperative that we give these people an opportunity. They
should have an opportunity to send their kids to a good school.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to close for my side with one word.
Opposition to private school vouchers is one of the few bipartisan
policy issues remaining in our country today. You will seldom find an
issue where almost two-thirds of the American people are in agreement.
And what they believe, according to all the data, is that money from
the public Treasury should not be siphoned off to private schools.
Diversion via the Davis amendment would begin that process for the
first time in U.S. history. I ask my colleagues to think about the
momentous nature of this vote and to vote against the Davis amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce and one of the authors
of this amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the lead sponsor on this
amendment, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) who has worked closely
with us to bring some hope to children who today do not have hope.
Eighty percent of the kids in America go to public schools, and we
are doing everything we can to help those public schools improve, and
we are all hopeful that they do improve. But we also know that the
problems in the D.C. schools are severe. In spite of spending over
$10,000 per student, we have the worst schools in America. And what
this amendment does is to say let us create a scholarship program for
2,000 of them.
This debate today really should not be about the teachers unions.
There is
[[Page H7989]]
no diversion of public money here. This debate today is about one
thing: the plight of poor kids who lost the lucky lottery of life in
terms of who their parents were or what household they grew up in or
what school that they got assigned to.
How can we continue to turn our heads and look the other way when we
know that children's lives are being ruined because they are
consistently put in a school that is not performing? I, for one, cannot
look the other way anymore.
Let me tell a story that I think illustrates all of this as best I
can illustrate it for all of you. I have been long involved with a
group here in town called D.C. Parents for School Choice and the
Washington Scholarship Fund. Every year the D.C. Parents for School
Choice have a picnic somewhere up here on Capitol Hill, and hundreds
and hundreds of mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, come to this
picnic with their child hoping that their child's name will be drawn
out of a hat for a scholarship.
I cannot go to the picnic anymore. I cannot go. Because when I went
to the picnic and I looked into the faces of these women with their
children, looking for hope, the only hope they were ever going to have
for that child was to get a scholarship to be able to go to a school
where that kid would have a chance to succeed. These mothers,
grandmothers and great-grandmothers, they were there and they knew that
their child, if they did not get that scholarship, the chances for them
to succeed were almost nil in these schools.
I sob, and I am doing everything I can not to sob here today. These
kids need our help. This is criminal neglect on the part of public
policy makers to continue to look the other way when we know that kids
are in schools, that they cannot learn, and they are not learning.
I have been in hundreds of schools and so have all of my colleagues.
We see these bright young faces in the first and second grade, eager to
learn, and then you look around some of these buildings and they have
no chance.
Without an education you have no chance at the American dream. These
kids need our help. They deserve our help. And when I vote today I will
be looking into the face of those mothers, grandmothers and great-
grandmothers, and I am not going to disappoint them.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, during the vote on Representative Tom
Davis's amendment to the fiscal year 2004 D.C. Appropriations Bill,
H.R. 2765, I mistakenly voted ``aye.'' I intended to vote ``no.'' At
the time, I was involved in a conference call with constituents. I left
the floor after voting on the Davis amendment to participate in the
call believing that I had voted in opposition to the Davis amendment. I
have heard from hundreds of my constituents who are opposed to voucher
proposals. I fully intended to continue my position of opposing all
school voucher proposals. I sincerely regret my error.
I did vote in favor of the Norton amendment to strike funding for
this voucher proposal. My vote on the Norton amendment is a true
indication of my position on this issue.
While I understand the strong feelings behind the prospect of
providing voucher to children in the District of Columbia, I have had a
longstanding and well-known position of opposing Federal funding for
school vouchers. I would much rather see additional investments made in
the D.C. public school system than to have funds used in private
schools. The D.C. voucher proposal will provide options for a very
small fraction of children in the District of Columbia public school
system. But every child in the District of Columbia deserves a high-
quality education, not just a few thousand. I strongly believe that a
high quality education system will only be possible through additional
investments to the public school system, rather than by using public
funds for private schools.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition
to the Davis amendment to the D.C. Appropriations bill.
Our country has a rich tradition of providing a quality education to
every child in America. I am a strong believer in America's public
schools. My wife taught in them for more than a quarter century. Many
of my family members and friends are public school teachers. My wife
and I are both graduates of public schools, as are our children.
My children, Angie and Chris, both graduated from public schools, and
went on to attend the University of Texas and Texas A&M, respectively.
My daughter attended the University of Texas Medical Branch in
Galveston and is now doing her residency in internal medicine there.
These are all public schools. I am proud of the adults they have
become, and know that they owe many of their successes to the fine
educations they've received at these public schools.
So I am disheartened by attempts like this one which seek to
dismantle America's public school program. I know that proponents of
this measure will argue that students in failing schools deserve
better--and I couldn't agree with them more. But vouchers are not the
answer.
As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the average voucher covers
only a small part of the costs of private school tuition. The vouchers
provided in this legislation would not go far enough to help all
students attend private schools. Only those with incomes sufficient to
cover the remainder of the tuition would be able to truly have a
choice. That leaves low-income students that much further behind.
Additionally, vouchers are unproven. The evidence is unclear as to
whether students actually do better in private schools than in public
schools with smaller class sizes. If we are really committed to
providing every child with a top-notch education, we should implement
proven reforms in all schools--qualified teachers, small class sizes,
updated materials, and advanced technologies.
Ninety percent of America's kids to go public schools. If we're going
to keep our promise to these kids, we need to make sure that all of
them--not just the fortunate few who can actually afford private
schools--receive a quality education.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be
postponed.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my good friend and
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations, and with the
support of the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
The colloquy deals with a surprising and very damaging change in
Social Security annuities for district firefighters, police, Secret
Service agents, Park Police and others.
Mr. Chairman, on October 1, 2002 the above District public service
employees were notified for the first time of a reduction in their
monthly retirement benefit payments by removing any credit received for
military service performed after 1956 pursuant to D.C. Code 5-704(h).
In other words, the firefighters and police who expected to have their
military service count towards retirement are now being told that their
benefits will be dramatically reduced or that they will have to pay
back benefits received to account for the calculation.
It is unfortunate and sad to expect the protectors of our Capitol,
who also served our country in the military, to be penalized for
government's mistake in not notifying them of this administrative
change.
Mr. Chairman, if Congress desires to continue to prohibit a military
service credit for Social Security contributions, then we have two
choices that would permit us to look at our firefighters and police
officers with a straight face. We can either restore the military
credit for those who were not notified of the change prior to October
of 2002 or we can permit them to buy back the benefits they have
received by having them submit adjusted payments that were due while in
the military.
Mr. Chairman, the harm our public safety personnel will endure from
these drastic annuity reductions or penalties will be severe. And I
encourage Members to support a correction to the D.C. Code that permits
them to manage this terrible mistake. I have committed to work with the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, as
well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to correct this mistake.
[[Page H7990]]
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from
Pennsylvania, who has consistently stood a fervent representative of
the national fire community, for bringing this issue to our attention.
I understand the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) are working with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) on a stand-alone bill to address this matter
and I support his efforts.
{time} 1315
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 136. Total Federal appropriations made in this Act
(other than appropriations required to be made by a provision
of law) are hereby reduced by $4,660,000.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to cut
the level of funding in this appropriations bill by 1 percent which
amounts to $4.66 million. As most of my colleagues are aware, I have
offered similar amendments on a number of the appropriation bills, in
fact, on most of the appropriation bills.
I want to emphasize particularly today that this is not a reflection
on the job that the chairman of committee or the ranking member or this
committee has done. In fact, my colleagues have done a good job, I
think, of actually allocating less this year than was done last year.
So it is not a reflection of that. What it is is a reflection of my
deep concern about the deficit that we continue to pile up.
I think it is important to state the affect these amendments that I
have offered would have on the deficit if they would be accepted on all
the spending bills. Just a tiny 1 percent cut to all of the spending
bills, one cent out of each dollar, would reduce the projected deficit
by almost 25 percent.
The practical reality of this amendment is that we would save $100
billion if we had passed all of these as we go along. Of course, we
have not. I think it is important to state that some of us are very
concerned about this deficit and this is the way to do it.
We have to draw a line somewhere. The budget we have for the next
year is too large. We can do something about the deficit right now. By
voting for my amendment members would be stating that the American
taxpayer should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we
could not control our spending today.
Our budget should be no different from the taxpayers' budgets at
home. When we have less money, we should spend less money. It is really
that simple.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal portion of this bill, as the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and I already know, is 8.4 percent below last
year's level which is about $43 million. It has made it difficult for
to us meet the city's priority.
Actually if we had not received the $10 million from the gentleman
from Ohio (Chairman Regula), our allocation would have been 10.4
percent below last year's allocation level.
This amendment, well intended, would reduce the Federal funds to the
District by another 1 percent or $4.6 million. The District needs every
dollar it can get for programs and priorities of the District. And I
urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Manzullo
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or
supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by
substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially
all''; or
(2) to enter into a contract for the construction,
alteration, or repair of any public building or public work
unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is
applied to such contract by substituting ``at least 65
percent'' for ``substantially all''.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, we can help our struggling manufacturing
sector today by increasing the American content of the equipment
purchased under this bill from 50 to 65 percent.
This modest increase will cause no real hardship for the District of
Columbia. It will be greatly appreciated by our Nation's desperate
manufacturers.
Today's Washington Post reported that the vast majority of the 2.7
million jobs lost since 2001 are not coming back unless new jobs are
created in novel and dynamic ways.
We need to be proactive on this bill and make it an engine for job
growth by buying from our own producers and getting them hiring again.
The people are looking to Congress for action.
From the Washington Post September 3, 2003, it quoted, ``In his Labor
Day address (The President) signaled that the loss of 2.6 million
manufacturing jobs during his administration had moved to the top of
his list of domestic policy concerns.''
Our domestic manufacturing base is being hollowed out right before
our own eyes. In 1981 Rockford, Illinois, the largest city of the
congressional district that I have the pleasure to represent, had an
unemployment rate of 25 percent, the highest in the Nation. Today it is
11.3 percent. I do not want to see a recurrence of what happened in
1981. This summer, two more factories closed down, and we are in danger
of seeing our industrial base irreparably harmed.
The Department of Labor employment report for August is out this
morning. Manufacturing employment declined again for the 37th
consecutive month. That is a record. In 30 days, our Nation lost 44,000
manufacturing jobs, and for the first time in our Nation's history, we
have fewer than 10 percent of our jobs in the manufacturing sector of
the labor force. That means fewer employees than at any time since
1961, when the U.S. population was 100 million or smaller.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is simply to state that, if
anything, taxpayers' dollars should be used to buy things that are made
in America. The present law today says only 50 percent. This increases
it to 65 percent. Why not save our manufacturing jobs with the
taxpayers' dollars that are being paid in?
There are other forums where this issue may be raised. We have been
advised by the Parliamentarian that this particular amendment is not
proper to raise at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment from
consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to offer amendments
to the bill?
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), amendment No. 2
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
[[Page H7991]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of virginia
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205,
noes 203, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 478]
AYES--205
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--203
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--26
Ackerman
Ballenger
Burr
DeGette
Foley
Frank (MA)
Janklow
John
Kucinich
LaHood
Leach
Lofgren
Mollohan
Murtha
Myrick
Pickering
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Roybal-Allard
Simmons
Sullivan
Waxman
Whitfield
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). The Chair reminds the Members that
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1347
Mr. GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. RENZI, BILIRAKIS and GINGREY changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 478 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the remainder of
this series of votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 203, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 479]
AYES--203
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
[[Page H7992]]
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wu
Wynn
NOES--203
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--28
Ackerman
Ballenger
Burr
Burton (IN)
DeGette
Diaz-Balart, L.
Ehlers
Foley
Janklow
John
Kucinich
LaHood
Leach
Lofgren
Mollohan
Murtha
Myrick
Pickering
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Roybal-Allard
Sullivan
Taylor (NC)
Waxman
Whitfield
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). The Chair advises Members there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1401
Mr. SIMPSON and Mr. ENGLISH changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 116,
noes 284, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 480]
AYES--116
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Camp
Cannon
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kirk
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Norwood
Nunes
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Wilson (SC)
NOES--284
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burns
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--34
Ackerman
Ballenger
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cole
DeGette
Diaz-Balart, L.
Ehlers
Foley
Janklow
John
Kucinich
LaHood
Leach
Lofgren
McHugh
Mollohan
Murtha
Myrick
Pence
Pickering
Pomeroy
Quinn
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Roybal-Allard
Sullivan
Taylor (NC)
Waxman
Whitfield
Woolsey
Young (AK)
[[Page H7993]]
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1410
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2765)
making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia
and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the
revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________