Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] how many speakers he has left.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any more speakers, so I reserve my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, Wednesday, the Committee on Rules met and reported House Resolution 288, which will provide a rule for consideration of two bills before us today. The first is a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 2746, the HELP Scholarships Amendments Act of 1997. That rule provides for 2 hours of debate on the bill, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The second bill in the resolution, H.R. 1616, the Charter Schools Amendments of 1997, will be considered under an open rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. It further makes in order a Committee on Education and the Workforce amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment which shall be considered as read. A manager's amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman, or his designee, is made in order by the rule. That amendment is considered as read, is not subject to amendment or to a division of the question, is debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided between a proponent and an opponent, and if adopted is considered as part of the base text for further amendment purposes. The Chair may give priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Votes may be postponed during consideration of the bill and reduced to 5 minutes if the postponed vote follows a 15-minute vote. One motion to recommit with or without instructions is provided. House Resolution 288 further provides in the engrossment of H.R. 2616, the Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 2746 as passed by the House, as a new matter at the end of H.R. 2616, and make conforming and designation changes within the engrossment. Following engrossment, H.R. 2746 shall be laid on the table. That is, should the HELP Scholarships bill pass today, it will be combined with the Charter Schools bill, provided that it passes, when it is sent to the other body. The final section of House Resolution 288 provides that House Resolution 280 is laid on the table. House Resolution 280 is a resolution providing for the consideration of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which was never used. This small provision in House Resolution 288 is a technical committee cleanup procedure and has no bearing on the consideration of H.R. 2746 or H.R. 2616. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear about what will happen if this resolution is passed. It will allow for separate consideration of the HELP Scholarships bill and the Charter Schools bill. Each bill would be debated under separate rules. If they both pass, they will be put together in a package and sent to the other body for consideration. Members will have an opportunity to vote individually on each bill. This resolution merely allows us to take them both up today. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not a vote on vouchers as some may lead Members to believe. It is a vote to determine if this body wants to bring these two important bills to the floor for a debate. I hope my colleagues support this resolution so that we can have an important debate about education in America. During consideration of House Resolution 288 in the Committee on Rules, there was some discussion about the way the HELP Scholarships bill is being brought to the floor. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the reason for this process, and I plan to yield time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, which has jurisdiction over this matter, so that he may offer further clarification about the process which brought the HELP Scholarships to the floor. When the Charter Schools bill was being crafted, the original intent was to add HELP Scholarships to the bill as an amendment. However, the Charter Schools bill evolved as a very bipartisan one, particularly due to the hard work of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. Thus, in the spirit of bipartisanship, the decision was made to not offer the HELP Scholarships language as an amendment. Today we are again going to debate the future of education in America. I believe that it is the duty of all Americans to ensure our children are well educated and prepared for the future. I also believe that low-income families should have the same opportunity to send their children to safe, effective schools as rich families. This is about children. The crisis in American education today especially affects children in elementary and secondary education. The education system is failing them and leaving too many children unprepared for the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider the following: 40 percent of all 10-year-olds cannot meet basic literacy standards; eighth graders recently placed 28th in the world in math and science skills; over 60 percent of 17-year-olds cannot read as well as they should; and 2,000 acts of violence take place in schools every day. Children in Los Angeles are taught a drill to protect themselves at the sound of gunfire, and almost one-third of freshmen entering college require some sort of remedial instruction. We have a moral obligation to fix these problems and without bold new ideas and innovative solutions we never will. The first bill, H.R. 2746, the Helping Empower Low-Income Parents Scholarships Amendment Act of 1997, is a very controversial issue, but one I wholeheartedly support. The bill empowers low-income parents living in poverty-stricken areas to send their children to the best schools that they see fit. Specifically, it permits State educational agencies and local educational agencies to use their title VI education block grant funds for public and private school choice at the State and local levels, and this is purely voluntary. In order to access these funds, the State legislature must enact school choice legislation. The bill further stipulates that the school choice program would be in low- income communities and be limited to low-income families. Last week, we passed a bill that allows families to use money from an education savings account for school-related expenses. Many people opposed to the bill said that their opposition was based on the fact that it would not benefit the poor. Well, I did not agree with them on that issue; they now have an opportunity to vote on a bill that is designed specifically for the poor. I hope that they will join me in support of this bill and will empower the very people they claimed to defend last week. Mr. Speaker, others have raised questions about the constitutionality of HELP Scholarships. As long as the decision about where the funds are spent is in the hands of individual students or parents, and as long as the program does not discriminate, a choice plan is likely to survive a constitutional challenge. The Federal Government already provides grants to students at private and religious colleges. Pell grants are awarded to college students based on financial needs and Pell grants are accepted at numerous private and religious schools. I have heard many of my colleagues fight hard for Pell grants, and I hope that those same people will come to the floor today and support a similar idea that will allow students based on financial need the same opportunity for elementary and secondary education. In addition to Pell grants, the Federal Government allows the GI bill to cover tuition at seminaries. That is Federal money going to religious education, not just to a religious school. I do not hear any of my colleagues clamoring to take this ability away from recipients of the GI bill. I ask my colleagues, is that not Federal money? Is that not money going to private and religious schools? What is the difference? The best part about programs like HELP Scholarships is that they work. Elementary school students in Milwaukee who participated in the Nation's first school voucher program scored higher in reading and math than those who stayed in public schools. The school choice option we are offering today is steadily gaining support across the Nation. A survey conducted by USA Today, CNN, and Gallup poll found that 54 percent of Americans favored vouchers. A majority of the grassroots organizations supporting education vouchers and school choice programs are from minority communities. A survey conducted by the joint center for political and economic studies found that 57 percent of African-Americans supported school vouchers for public, private, or parochial school. This is not surprising since black children in urban areas are the most endangered by the failures of public education. In fact, support among African Americans for education reform is fast outstripping the growth of enthusiasm among whites. The argument that public education is the greatest equalizer is unfortunately falling on deaf ears in the poorest neighborhoods. That is where the schools are the worst. Large numbers of public schools in these areas are exclusive and segregated. Ironically, private religious schools in many urban areas are more consistent with the original concept of public education bringing together children of widely differing social and economic backgrounds. The HELP scholarships will allow more of these children to get the quality education they deserve. They very well may be the real equalizer of the future. This resolution also grants a rule for consideration of H.R. 2616, the Charter Schools Amendment Act of 1997. This is somewhat less controversial. It enjoys broad bipartisan support and also deserves the support of all my colleagues. Charter schools are innovative public schools which are set free from burdensome regulations and held accountable for their results. Since the inception of charter schools in Minnesota 6 years, ago the idea has swept the Nation. Currently, 29 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have charter schools. Though this is a new concept, it is helping to transform public education in a way that is beneficial to the children that attend them. Parental satisfaction is high, students are eager to learn, teachers can enjoy their jobs again, administrators are freed from the shackles of suffocating regulation, and more money is getting to the classroom where it belongs. In light of this success, we need to expand the current program so that we can reach more children in more communities. This bill is a good one that carefully targets the new money. It directs money to those States that provide a high degree of fiscal autonomy, allow for increases in the number of charter schools from year to year and provide for accountability. It also increases the number of years a charter school can get a grant from 3 to 5 years. This bill also stipulates that 95 percent of the Federal charter schools money goes to State and local level. That way we can be sure the Federal bureaucracy is not wasting money that is intended for the kids. Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Education to make sure that charter schools are on level ground so that they will receive their fair share of Federal categorical aid such as title I and special education funding. The Secretary is also directed to assist charter schools in accessing private capital. I am excited about both of the bills this resolution brings to the floor, and I know that many of my colleagues do not share my enthusiasm. They have had philosophical disagreements with the intent of these new and innovative ideas. This resolution accommodates them. It allows for a separate vote on each bill. It allows them to vote their conscience without having to compromise their philosophical beliefs. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 288 so that we may have a spirited debate on the important issues facing America's families. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul]. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met yesterday and granted a modified closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 2646, the Educational Savings Accounts for Public and Private Schools Act. The rule considers the bill as read for endorsement. The rule further considers the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means as modified by the amendment printed in part one of the Committee on Rules report, which fixes a 10-year pay-go problem in the Senate. The amendment causes provisions in this bill to expire after 5 years. This is in keeping with our efforts to stay within the bounds of our historic budget agreement. The Committee on the Budget has indicated they are in agreement with this amendment. The rule also provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule further provides for consideration of an amendment, if offered, by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] or his designee. All points of order are waived against his amendment. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment and shall be debatable for 60 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. What we will debate is a matter of philosophy. There are really only two sides. The rule allows debate between those who support giving families more power over the education of their children, and those who support allowing bureaucrats to continue to have that power. The crisis in American education today especially affects children in elementary and secondary education. Our education system is failing them and leaving too many children unprepared for the future. Consider the following: Forty percent of all 10-year-olds cannot meet basic literacy standards; eighth graders recently placed 28th in the world in math and science skills; over 60 percent of 17-year-olds cannot read as well as they should; 2,000 acts of violence take place in schools every day; children in Los Angeles are taught to drill to protect themselves at the sound of gunfire; and almost one-third of freshmen entering college require some sort of remedial instruction. We have a moral obligation to fix these problems. Without bold new ideas and innovative solutions, we never will. Recently there has been a great deal of talk about helping more people afford a higher education. Helping financially is great, but what about the students who never access those programs because their school failed to prepare them for college? I believe we must enact reforms like H.R. 2646 so that we can truly expand higher educational opportunities for children. We increase those opportunities by providing a good, solid education at the elementary and secondary level. That way, more children will be prepared to go on to college. Blocking those reforms keeps too many children locked into a system that never gives them a chance to realize their true potential. The real expansion of opportunity will come from preparing more children for higher education. We must reach them while they are in elementary and secondary schools, because if we do not educate them coming in, they will not have that opportunity to go to college, no matter what it costs. It is not a question of how much money is being spent on education. Some of the worst schools in the country are in districts where the per student spending is very high. It is a question of who controls the spending: families or bureaucrats. I, for one, side with the families. Research has shown that engaging parents in their children's education improves the academic performance of their children. It also gives parents a stake in the success of their local school. The bill we will debate today is one of the most innovative initiatives yet advanced to improve the quality of education for children in America. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, an estimated 14.3 million families will benefit from these savings accounts by the year 2000, and about 10.8 million of those have children who attend public schools. H.R. 2646 allows families and anyone else concerned with a child's education, like grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, concerned mentors, or neighbors, to invest in an education savings account for that child. Mr. Speaker, the money in these savings accounts could be withdrawn tax-free to pay for the child's education-related expenses, and those expenses may include a personal computer, tutoring, transportation to school, books, a school uniform, or private school tuition. Parents of home-schooled children and children with special needs may also use these funds for educational-related expenses. Any money not used by the time the child graduates from high school could be used for college- related expenses. Similar ideas have been implemented in Minnesota and Arizona. For almost 15 years, Minnesota taxpayers have been able to deduct from their State income taxes expenses incurred for tuition fees, textbooks, and transportation for children enrolled in public or private schools. In fact, earlier this year the Minnesota Legislature expanded the tax credit due to enormous public support. According to the Governor's office, about 900,000 children will benefit from their expanded plan. On April 3, the Arizona Legislature passed an innovative tuition tax credit which provides a credit for contributions to public school, extracurricular programs, and for contributions to tax-exempt organizations that award scholarships to children to attend the private schools of their choosing. H.R. 2646 is a good bill. In a recent poll, 66 percent of those who were polled supported the creation of savings accounts like the ones in this bill. This bill will not solve all the problems in our public education system, but it can be part of the answer. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and H.R. 2646. Do it for the children, for their future. We have the power to help. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].