[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21278-21317]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 21279]]

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 national 
program to help the Washington, D.C. sewage system. Without it, we will 
not clean up our rivers, and

[[Page 21280]]

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

[[Page 21281]]

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 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-

[[Page 21282]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 21283]]

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 (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, dys-
functioning 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-

[[Page 21284]]

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?
  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.

[[Page 21285]]

       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 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. 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).

[[Page 21286]]


  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.

                              {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 under-
pinnings, 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

[[Page 21287]]

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 (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.

[[Page 21288]]

  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 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

[[Page 21289]]

     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 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.

[[Page 21290]]

  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 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

[[Page 21291]]

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 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

[[Page 21292]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 21293]]

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.
  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

[[Page 21294]]

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 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

[[Page 21295]]

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.
  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

[[Page 21296]]

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 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.

[[Page 21297]]

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 
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

[[Page 21298]]

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 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

[[Page 21299]]

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 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.

[[Page 21300]]

  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, Ms. 
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.
  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

[[Page 21301]]

     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.
       (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

[[Page 21302]]

     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 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

[[Page 21303]]

     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.
       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.

[[Page 21304]]

       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 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

[[Page 21305]]

     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.
  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''.

[[Page 21306]]



     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 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

[[Page 21307]]

     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

[[Page 21308]]

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.
  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

[[Page 21309]]

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.
  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

[[Page 21310]]

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 
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

[[Page 21311]]

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 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.

[[Page 21312]]

       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----
  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 in 
     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

[[Page 21313]]

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 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

[[Page 21314]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 21315]]

  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).


             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.''

[[Page 21316]]


  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
     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)

[[Page 21317]]



                               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)


                      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.

                          ____________________