Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I invite the gentleman to exercise some of that passion for vouchers for the children of Alexandria. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, correcting the record for the gentleman from Virginia, the District has the second lowest per pupil spending on students in the region. His district, Fairfax County, is $7,650. Mine is only $7,000 and Alexandria is $9,000. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the deputy chief whip.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, let me correct the gentlewoman from North Carolina on both of the decisions, both the Wisconsin and the Ohio decisions. The courts looked both to their State constitution and specifically, specifically grounded their decisions on the Constitution of the United States of America as well.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like the record to show that the quotation just cited did not apply to vouchers but to tax schemes, not vouchers to parents. But the decisions from which I quoted, where vouchers were found unconstitutional, applied directly to vouchers of precisely the kind at issue here.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me begin by making a point that I hope everyone who comes to the floor understands. The Member who just spoke indicated a prerogative he thinks he has in the District of Columbia that he does not have in anyone else's district. May I say to him that he has no prerogative to manage anybody who is not accountable to him at the ballot box, and neither he nor any Member of this House manages anything in the District of Columbia; and under the Constitution of the United States, no Member should ever claim to manage any people who cannot vote for him. The gentleman has no prerogatives, and I will accept none, nor will I accept pejorative language with respect to our schools. Let me just start this debate with that understanding to Members who want to come to the floor that way. The District of Columbia public schools are poor, very, very poor. But they are no better and they are no worse than every big-city school system in the United States of America. So if my colleagues want to help the youngsters of the District of Columbia, help them. But they are tired of hearing Members of this body, who have not compared my school system to theirs or any others, describe it as the worst in the United States, and I will not have it on this floor today. I oppose this rule, and I oppose it because the real needs of the children in my district are too serious to engage in a political exercise. I recognize that that is not the intent of every Member who favors vouchers, but whether intended or not, that is exactly what we will engage in this morning. The reason that I call this a political exercise is that the voucher bill before us is exactly like the vouchers that have already been declared unconstitutional in two States; two courts, one in Ohio, another in Wisconsin, in the only court tests of publicly funded vouchers have held them unconstitutional as recently as last year. President Clinton will veto this bill because it will drain funds from the public schools to parochial and private schools. I have his statement of administration policy before me as I speak. Let me quote from it. S. 1502 would create a program of federally funded vouchers that would divert critical resources, that should be devoted to our public education priorities, to private schools with little or no public accountability for how funds are used. Moreover, the bill is apparently designed to ensure that receipt of these vouchers, unlike other Federal funds, would not require schools to comply with Federal civil rights laws that protect students from discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. Mr. Speaker, I sought to convert the interest of Members in the school system of the District into legislation which could be signed. To that end, because of the almost certain constitutional demise of this bill coupled with the assured presidential veto, I went to the Committee on Rules yesterday feeling that we had an obligation to come forward with a substitute all could support if we seriously meant to help these kids. My substitute would have directed the $7 million into objectively approved reforms in the D.C. public schools, chosen because they would have the greatest impact on the largest number of students. Specifically, I asked for $3.5 million to be given to the D.C. Control Board to be passed on for reading tutors in the District's 73 lowest performing schools. I then asked that the other half be provided to the Secretary of Education to fund proven reforms that fit the District's 70 lowest performing schools. I drew that section of my substitute from the Porter-Obey bill that we passed last year on school reform demonstration projects. Beyond the quality controls now being implemented by the District's impressive new superintendent, Arlene Ackerman, the Porter-Obey program requires approval by the Department of Education, and thus I thought that that kind of substitute would guarantee precisely the kind of controls and the kind of outcomes, and the substitute met all the issues that I believe Republicans and Democrats say mean most to them; the emphasis on devolution for Republicans that has been thrown over to the side, as if the people of the District of Columbia were wards of this body, or colonists before the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Speaker, I am here this morning to warn every Member that this Member will not be treated as if she represents colonials. The substitute would also, of course, not only have satisfied devolution concerns but the concerns of Democrats to reach the majority of the kids in the D.C. public schools. Now, the substitute was not made in order, nor was an amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) made in order that would apply the civil rights enforcement mechanism to these vouchers. What the majority has done is to create a fiction, saying that public funds in these 100 percent Federal funded vouchers are not State aid for purposes of civil rights enforcement. Thus, if there has been a violation of civil rights under these vouchers, the only recourse would be to file a suit in Federal court, which of course, would be impossible for the low-income residents to whom these vouchers are directed. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to oppose this rule, whether Democrats or Republicans. I ask them to respect the people of the District of Columbia who have voted in a percentage of 89 percent against vouchers.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, Madam Speaker.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to commit the Senate bill to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that the District of Columbia is under a Control Board because of its dire financial condition, and the Congress of the United States bears a heavy responsibility for that. May I also indicate to the gentleman that we love our private schools. We love our religious schools. Because of them, many residents who would otherwise move out stay here. If, in fact, the competition from private schools was sufficient to help bring up public schools, then the District of Columbia would be among the most excellent in the world. Let me be clear, I am not now and never shall be an apologist for the public schools of the District of Columbia, although I attended these same schools and got a good education during the years when the Congress of the United States required that they be segregated under law. At the same time, I shall not abandon these schools. Nor will I require or expect that any parent or any child remain in the D.C. public schools until they are brought up to par. I renew my challenge to the majority to let us raise private money for private schools together, particularly because most of these schools will necessarily be religious schools that cannot be publicly funded under the Constitution of the United States. Madam Speaker, Christ said, ``Render under Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.'' Public money belongs in public schools. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, at this time it looks like around three.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the State whose voters rejected vouchers twice.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who is also a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I will not abide reckless charges on the floor, and the thing I want to say is that there is no corruption in the D.C. Public schools or anywhere else. I think there is, and we have asked for investigations. But when the gentleman rises on the floor to allege what everybody knows, I challenge him to cite me an instance, and if he cannot, then I tell him, and he did not yield to me, and so I shall not yield to him, but I tell him this much: This Member will not accept his reckless charges on this floor or his stereotypes, and until he is willing to turn over to this Member an example of such charges I ask him to keep his charges to himself. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Replying to the distinguished majority leader's view of who would decide this matter and what might be decided, I quote first from the Wisconsin court: Nonetheless, we accept the State's premise that, in reviewing the program, we may and perhaps must consult the United States Supreme Court cases applying the primary effect test. This test is the second of three parts of the lemon test. Quoting also the Ohio court: While it is clear that Section 7, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides a source of protection against State funding of sectarian schools independent of the Establishment Cause, the case law construing this section indicates that its protection against State funding of sectarian institutions is essentially coextensive with that afforded by the Establishment Clause. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I would like to refer the gentleman from Texas to the Wisconsin decision and to the Ohio decision. In both of those decisions the court said they were applying the lemon test, and in both of those decisions the court said the publicly funded vouchers of the precise kind at issue here did not meet the lemon test. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York City (Mr. Meeks) specifically from Queens, New York.