Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the sponsor of this motion for all the work that he has done. And let me say, I do not believe there is anyone in this Chamber who would be more enthusiastic about fully funding and making available higher education opportunities than the gentleman from Ohio, who is the chairman of this subcommittee.

I think that none of us come to this floor tonight, at least I do not, as part of some partisan attempt to win a few

debating points. The future of the young people in our country is much too important for us to make this a partisan back and forth.

I went to a number of institutions, but before I went to the University of Pennsylvania and to the Kennedy School at Harvard. I went to the Community College of Philadelphia. I went there able to enroll with the basic educational opportunity grant, a Pell Grant recipient, when I started out as a college student. I have at home tonight two young children, one 5 years old and another just 8 weeks old, and two older ones who have matriculated most of their way through higher education, one through law school and another who is finishing a business education at a university home in Pennsylvania.

I served with the gentleman who just spoke from Pennsylvania for a long period of my years in the Pennsylvania Senate and House, and during that time served in a leadership role at the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, where over a million young people were provided, through State grant assistance, the opportunity to go to college. We just launched in Philadelphia an effort where we secured some $40 million through local funds to make sure that every graduate of our public schools knows with a certainty that they can go on to college.

This question of the future of our Nation is not just one for my daughters at home, Cameron and Chandler, but it is really the shaping impulse of the future of our country that we not focus so much on the next election but that we focus on the next generation. We need these young people to be college educated in order to have an economy that works.

I do not think anyone would suggest that since not one Republican voted for the Clinton economic plan that somehow they were not for 20 million new jobs, or they were not for balanced budgets, or they were not for the surpluses that were generated during the Clinton years. Those Democrats that found some question about this appropriations bill earlier in this session were voting because they wanted more done, not less done. And we come here tonight to join with the chairman and to say that at a minimum the conference committee, which both of us serve on, should do at least as much as the House has suggested that we do.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as we would have wished that there would have been at least one Republican that voted for the Clinton economic plan, there are times in which clarity on these issues is not as readily available.

But I want to thank the chairman for all that he has done, and we hope that in this conference that we will do at least as much as the gentleman was able to get the House to do.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I will conclude by saying that I would hope there would come a day we could guarantee that every American youngster would be able to qualify for a Pell Grant or some vehicle for them to go on to college.

The gentleman has done a lot of work with me on GEAR UP and other projects, and we are doing a lot, but there is more to be done because millions of our young people in this country do not yet know with a certainty that they can go to college, and we have not, in this time of high tuition increases, kept pace. That is all we are asking tonight; that we do as much as we can do at this moment in time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Cheltenham Township Twinning Celebration and the Charter Signing Ceremony at the annual Harvest Festival on Saturday, October 11, 2003.

Located on the northwest border of Philadelphia in the heart of the Northern Greater Philadelphia Region, Cheltenham Township is a mixture of distinctive neighborhoods, tree-lined streets, abundant parks, convenient shopping districts, and apartment complexes. Cheltenham's multiethnic community dates back to Quaker emigrants who settled in the area around 1690. Two of these new settlers came from Cheltenham, England, and thus the name was established.

Historically famous for the spa waters that drew King George III for a visit in the late 1700s, Cheltenham, England, is a mostly urban town located on the edge of Cotswold Hills retains much of its stylish Regency architecture. Having established a long-standing friendship, the Lord Mayor and Mayoress of Cheltenham, England, along with other councilors and dignitaries, will visit Cheltenham Township to formalize their friendship in an official ``twin city'' relationship in an effort to expand opportunities for residents in each community to get to know one another. I would like to insert the following language of the Twinning Charter into the record:

Cheltenham Twinning Charter

Cheltenham Township, Pennsylvania, USA, and Cheltenham,

Gloucestershire, UK, having already established a long-

standing tradition of friendship and goodwill through visits

and exchanges for more than 50 years, do hereby formally

resolve:

To continue to foster and develop mutual understanding and

respect between the people of Cheltenham Township,

Pennsylvania, USA, and the people of Cheltenham,

Gloucestershire, UK; and

To encourage and assist youth and adult organizations,

clubs, companies, groups and all classes of people in

Cheltenham Township, Pennsylvania, USA, and Cheltenham,

Gloucestershire, UK, to communicate and exchange visits with

each other, thereby developing human and cultural relations

and maintaining a firm foundation for future understanding,

respect and friendship for all time.

Now, therefore, we do solemnly declare in the names of our

citizens this Twinning Charter between Cheltenham Township,

Pennsylvania, USA, and Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.

Done on October 11, 2003, in Cheltenham Township,

Pennsylvania, USA.

Mr. Speaker, I commend both Cheltenham Township of Pennsylvania and Cheltenham of Gloucestershire, UK, in their efforts to foster goodwill between its people. Their relationship will undoubtedly grow as its citizens build upon their common bond.

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. 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.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to make a couple of points. One is that it is true that the mayor has come out in favor of this approach, assuming that there would be dollars for our public schools and charter schools, in what we now call the three-prong approach. The three-prong approach is not what is before us at all, and I sincerely believe the chairman when he says that we hope in conference that we can address that. But the vote before us today is to do nothing additional for public schools, nothing additional for charter schools and solely and singularly take dollars and to provide them to private institutions.

I personally think that private school choice is wonderful and if people want to make private choices, I think they should pay for them privately. This is a public enterprise and we have

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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just make a couple of comments. A basic understanding of how the city government operates is that the mayor is the executive. City policy is designed by a consensus between the council and a majority and the executive through statute. There is nothing that prevents the D.C. Government at any time from instituting a voucher program if it wants to. There does not exist a political consensus in the District; that is, the legislative body, which we should have great sympathy for as we are a legislative body, does not agree with this policy. So to say, well, you have got the city's support because you have the mayor, ask us if you have the full support of the city government when you actually do not.

It is important that as we say that we come with great concern about the plight of the children in the District and that we want them to have the same opportunity that our children have, let us give them the same opportunity that the constituents of the gentleman from Virginia have. That is, they have quality schools with fully-qualified, credentialed teachers. Let us take these dollars and provide that here in the District. They have schools that have updated curriculums and adequate libraries and school counselors for all of the children who are presented to the schoolhouse door, not taking a few children, siphoning them off and helping them, and forsaking the rest to a District that by his own statement is not living up to what we would hope it would live up to.

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).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to enter into the Record a new story from the Florida Naples Daily News which headlines ``Private School with Ties to Terrorists gets State Money'' through a private tuition voucher program.

And I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Washington State. It is true that the mayor supports dollars for vouchers which I disagree with. It is also true, and I think fair to say, that this is not the proposal that the mayor supports. He supports a three-pronged approach that is not what is going to be before us today, and I sincerely appreciate all the work that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has done on behalf of the District, but this is not a proposal that the mayor supports nor is it a proposal that the City Council supports. So to say this has the support of the District, I think, is really kind of twisting things slightly.

[From the Florida Naples Daily News, July 18, 2003]

Private School With Ties to Alleged Terrorist Gets State Money

Tampa.--Senate Democrats urged Gov. Jeb Bush on Thursday to

cut off payment to a school co-founded by a professor accused

of being the North American leader of a worldwide terrorist

organization.

The school received $350,000 last year through a state

program that pays private school tuition for some students.

A February grand jury indictment against Sami Al-Arian, the

alleged leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and seven

others says the school was used as a base of support for the

organization.

The indictment said the purpose of the organization was

``to assist its engagement in, and promotion of, violent

attacks designed to thwart the Middle East Peace Process.''

It said the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is responsible for 100

murders in Israel and its territories.

Al-Arian, who is being held in jail without bail and denies

any connections to terrorism, co-founded the school in 1992

and served as its director and chairman of its board.

The school's treasurer, Sameeh Hammoudeh, also was indicted

and is being held in jail without bond. He and Al-Arian

allegedly encouraged people who wanted to send money to

Palestinians to write checks to their school. The Palm Beach

Post reported in its Thursday editions.

Last year, the 300-student Islamic Academy of Florida

received more than 50 percent of its revenue from the state

program, Florida PRIDE, which uses corporate donations to pay

for poor students to attend private schools.

``The disclosures that more than $300,000 of this money

went last year to a school suspected of terrorist ties raises

the frightening specter that Florida's taxpayers may be

unwittingly funding extremist organizations intent on the

destruction of our nation and its allies,'' Senate Democratic

Leader Ron Klein and Senator Dave Aronberg wrote in their

letter to Gov. Jeb Bush.

Denise Lasher, spokeswoman for Florida PRIDE, said

officials conducted an independent audit of the school after

the indictment was released and found no misuse of funds and

no connection between the scholarship money and terrorist

activity.

She said the school received more than $300,000 in federal

grants for computers and its free- and reduced-price school

lunch program.

``It was unfortunate that there was someone at the school

accused of doing something

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).

Mr. Chairman, could we have an audit of the time? We will not have audits of these private schools.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. 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.

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. Chairman, I was going to offer an amendment, but I decided due to the lack of time not to offer it at this time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. Chairman, is there some list of which religiously affiliated schools would be eligible?

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. 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. Chairman, I am not trying to be argumentative.

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?

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?

Which one is it, the former or the latter?

So are there certain religious affiliations that would be acceptable and others that would not?

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

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?

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?

I want to enter into the Record a report from California, not the earlier report I referenced from Florida, of a school that was set up under the laws of California that received millions and millions of dollars to educate children, and it has now been determined that they were funded and founded and set up by a Pakistani terrorist organization.

I want to enter this into the Record, because I think what the concern is here is that if those who believe in witchcraft, those who have antisocial racial views, any number of people who claim to be a religion can set up a religiously affiliated school and benefit through the largesse of this $10 million and pretend that they are educating children, segregate them, as I understand under the gentleman's authorizing language by sex or any other manner, hire only those who believe what they believe, discriminate against anyone else, and determine their own curriculum, that I have a concern about, even if we agree that this was the way to go, that this kind of loophole would be useful to us at this time in our Nation's capital.

[From ABC News I-Team]

Baladullah

Nov. 8.--The ABC7 News I-Team has learned that millions of

your tax dollars are headed this year, to a group that is

connected to an organization founded by a Pakistani

terrorist. You are paying for a new system of charter

schools, started by the members of an Islamic village in the

Sierra foothills called ``Baladullah.'' Dan Noyes has Part

Two of this I-Team investigation.

The ABC7 News I-Team has learned that millions of your tax

dollars are headed this year to a group that is connected to

an organization founded by a Pakistani terrorist. You are

paying for a new system of charter schools, started by the

members of an Islamic village in the Sierra foothills called

``Baladullah.'' Dan Noyes has Part Two of this I-Team

investigation.

Some of these charter schools are here in the Bay Area. We

want to be clear from the

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.

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the HOPE VI program, which received a very significant allocation last year in this bill, has only a $50 million allocation. Part of the rationale for not aggressively supporting what is the most successful neighborhood revitalization program and the largest in our country is that there is in the pipeline some projects that have not moved as quickly as we might want them to.

I met with the officials at HUD, and my staff has interacted with any number of people since we have become aware of this problem, and I am convinced that part of the problem, which was identified by the GAO in a study done, is that HUD has backed away from and withdrawn services and support, including the use of expediters to move these projects through the pipeline.

So I have offered an amendment to substantially increase technical assistance from $500,000 to $5 million to help move these projects through the pipeline. Hopefully, as we go between now and conference, because a lot of Members are very interested in HOPE VI on a bipartisan basis, we would like to see this subcommittee find a way, and I know that the chairman and my ranking member would work with us on this, to try to see how we could have a greater commitment to seeing this program move forward. It is also up for reauthorization.

But I think at a minimum, at least at this moment, the one thing that the House should do is to substantially increase technical assistance and say to HUD that we want the communities around this country that receive HOPE VI grants to have the type of expertise that they need to be able to make those projects go and to go as quickly as possible so that we never again have any rationale offered that projects previously funded that are desperately needed are not moving as quickly as some might want them to.

I have talked both with the majority and the minority, Mr. Chairman, and I believe this amendment might find acceptance.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

For every reason I can think of, Mr. Chairman, this is an important thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me in conclusion say that I share the sympathies that have been articulated by the gentleman from Illinois. I do, however, want to say that I think this technical assistance addition is important, and I want to thank the majority and the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Fattah

Amendment No. 19: In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT--Public and Indian Housing--

revitalization of severely distressed public housing (hope

vi)'', after the second dollar amount, insert the following:

``(increased by $4,500,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the most important work that our faith-based organizations could perhaps do on behalf of this Nation is to pray for the soul of our country. If we would come at this hour and block grant Head Start to States, it would appear that we have blocked out of our heads the historical circumstances in our States in terms of the way they treated the academic development of poor children.

What State in our country will we put on the honor roll in terms of providing an adequate educational opportunity for poor children, where they insisted that these children get qualified teachers and decent classrooms? In 45 of our 50 States there has been litigation by thousands of our school districts about the inadequacy of the provision of public education.

Why did the Federal Government get in the business of Head Start? Was it

because States were rushing to help poor children get ready for school? Why did we get involved in school lunch programs and summer job programs, in title I? We have gotten involved because States have never sought to provide for poor children what they need to prepare for their future.

Offered By: Mr. Fattah

Amendment No. 9: In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT--Public and Indian Housing--

revitalization of severely distressed public housing (hope

vi)'', after the first dollar amount, insert the following:

``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT--Public and Indian Housing--revitalization of

severely distressed public housing (hope vi)'', after the

second dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by

$4,500,000)''.

In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT--Management and Administration--working capital

fund'', after the first dollar amount, insert the following:

``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for yielding me this time. And let me thank my good friend, someone who has ably led this Congress in a number of different fashions, but with whom I have worked closely on the Committee on Government Reform for many years, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the honor of knowing Bob Borski for many years. When I was just some 23, 24 years of age, being elected to the State House in 1982, he was exiting the same chair that I was going to sit in, because he was on his way to Washington, leaving the State House and coming to represent the great city of Philadelphia and our Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania here in Washington. And so I rise in support of H.R. 2328.

Congressman Borski served here for many, many terms representing, in particular, northeast Philadelphia; but his reach went far beyond that, for he rose to be one of the leading Members of this Congress on transportation issues. He worked to secure for Pennsylvania and for many other areas of our Nation the rightful resources that were necessary to improve and enhance our airports, particularly the Philadelphia International Airport, our ports, our waterways. Bob Borski worked tirelessly. He was, in my mind, the most effective Member of Congress on transportation issues that we have ever had from Philadelphia. He worked to expand I-95.

We could go through a lot, but one of the things I appreciated about Bob Borski was the human qualities. He stepped aside, for instance, so that I could go after a seat on the Committee on Appropriations when he was the more senior Member from our city, but he felt that he was going to have a fairly short career at that point and he thought it better that I go forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that on not just the congressional delegation, Jack Murtha, his colleagues from Philadelphia, Bob Brady and the sponsor of this bill, Congressman Joe Hoeffel, that there are many others in our State. With the loss, that is, with the leaving from Congress of Congressmen Shuster and Borski now, our State has lost a great deal of seniority and knowledge and expertise in the transportation areas, but we nonetheless appreciate their service. And particularly in terms of Bob Borski, the Governor; the mayor of our city, John F. Street; for many local officials, Bob Borski was an experienced and practical and commonsense political leader. We really appreciated his service. We wish him well as he moves on into other aspects of his life.

I am reminded when he had his going-away get-together here on the Hill, he had his family around him at the podium. It was symbolic, but it was really substantive. That is to say that Bob Borski did so much here in the Congress, did so much to help this country and help his home State, but at the end of the day and most importantly for him as he tried to make sure that I understood when he talked about my daughter, Cameron, that family has to be the most important issue for all of us. He was a good example of that.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say I thank the gentleman for yielding me a few minutes.

I am concerned about the process that has brought this rule to the floor and the previous rule. I had offered an amendment that would have had the effect of gathering more data on what is a national crisis, one that the President of the United States himself in the State of the Union 2 years ago addressed when he said that he wanted to work towards a country in which every child had a qualified teacher in their classroom.

We have seen study after study across this land in which African American, Latino, poor white youngsters in Appalachia and other communities are being put in a circumstance where every day they are in classrooms in which they are being taught by teachers who did not major or minor in the subjects that they are teaching.

In fact, as a young, poor student in an inner city or in a poor rural area in Ohio, in Pennsylvania, you could go through your entire middle and high school years and never have a qualified math teacher or science teacher in your classroom.

My amendment would have sought to gather more data to add to the already fairly convincing set of statistics on this matter. For some reason, without explanation, the Committee on Rules of this House has decided that that amendment should not be made in order; that this body should not even have an opportunity to vote to pursue one of President Bush's number one priorities, and a priority that should be, I think, first and foremost in all of our efforts if we want to improve education, because we cannot possibly expect a child to learn from someone who is teaching them a subject that they do not know.

It is implausible to think that we would continue this dilemma across our country; that we would close our eyes to it, not want to have that information. And why this Committee on Rules would deny an opportunity for this amendment to be debated is without explanation. I think that it does a disservice to the House, to our democratic process. Moreover, and much more importantly, it does a disservice to future generations. We need that information so that as policymakers we can help shape education reform in a way that really is meaningful and makes sense.

I am going to work, notwithstanding what the Committee on Rules has decided, to have this amendment considered in some other format, in some other way, so that at the end of the day, as a United States Congress, the most important lawmaking body in the country, we can begin to address this issue to make sure that there are, in fact, qualified teachers. Why would we have a child take a standardized test in every State in the Union and not have any concern about the standards that their teachers who have been instructing them have had to meet; or whether or not they have had a decent textbook, a reasonable opportunity to learn?

I think this is not a partisan issue. There is no reason this amendment should have been ruled out of order. And I hope that the Committee on Rules in the future would give respect to the ideals that this is a democratic process and that all views should be heard, and then let the body work its will.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest a caution flag as we rush towards this free lunch-approach to governmental fiscal policy. We cannot have a world-class military and defense, world-class health care, education, cities, and culture, and suggest that no one has to pay for it. And we talk about tax cuts today as if they are going to stimulate the economy tomorrow with some type of selective amnesia, because it was right here on this floor just 2 years ago that we passed the largest tax cut supposedly in the history of the country. And it did not stimulate our economy.

Let us just take a look for a minute at where we are.

We have moved from hundreds of billions of dollars of surpluses to now having hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits. We had millions of Americans who were working who are now unemployed; and, even today, the unemployment registration rate in our country has increased again. Consumer confidence is down. Housing starts are down. And every single indicator, in terms of economic health in our country, is troubling.

We have heard from the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, suggesting that this tax cut is very problematic in both the short term and the long term. He cautions the Congress that our combination of both spending and tax cuts risks the fiscal health of this Nation. And the Republican majority, I am sure, wants to say, well, we just need to get spending under control, as if the country should forget that they are in the majority, that they control spending both in the House and in the Senate, and they control the signature from the executive at the White House.

For so many years now we have been insisting on spending more on defense, we have been insisting on investing in a whole range of exotic weapons systems, and then we come to the floor and the majority offers us more and more tax cuts. The fiscal health of our country is in jeopardy. Future generations will have to pay. We should say to Americans, why do we not be mature, pay the bills as we go, rather than run the country into further deficit?

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to comment on the life and legacy of our former colleague Lucien E. Blackwell, who served as a Congressman for the Second District, and prior to that served for two decades as a member of the city council of Philadelphia, where he served as a chairman of the finance committee and moved through the council all of the critical and major pieces of legislation that impacted the growth and development of the city of Philadelphia as we know it today. And even before that service, he served as an elected official in the State legislature in Pennsylvania.

I remember almost three decades now ago when he led an effort with the late State representative David P. Richardson of Pennsylvania to clean up the conditions at our youth detention facility headquartered in our side of the State of the Youth Study Center on the parkway. He fought in the city council and passed the first major minority set- aside legislation once he found out that African American and women- owned businesses were getting less than 2 percent of the city procurement business, and created a program that opened a door for disadvantaged businesses to have an opportunity at the procurement in Philadelphia.

As my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), has indicated, he started his public career, however, as a labor leader where he leveled the Longshoreman's Union in Philadelphia. And immediately prior to that he served our Nation in the Korean War conflict. He was a veteran of that conflict, and he won medals for his commitment and his service fighting with the Korean War veterans, and was a part of the effort to create an appropriate memorial for Korean veterans.

So Lucien E. Blackwell, who died suddenly at the age of 71, as it is reported, leaves now his wife, who is a city councilwoman in Philadelphia and a major leader in our city, and a host of children and grandchildren, who are going to in their own way make a mark and live up to the legacy of Lucien Blackwell.

And Philadelphians, Pennsylvanians, and all across this country people remember the passion of Lucien Blackwell, particularly his effort to be concerned about those who were considered in some quarters to be little people or outside of the mainstream of power. He fought with Maleek for ex-offenders. He fought to feed the homeless in Philadelphia, sometimes to the chagrin of the establishment. He fought to include labor fully in the discussions of economic development in our city, major building projects and every other respect.

Lucien Blackwell should be remembered by this House as not just a former Member, but someone whose life of service honored the House by him being a Member here, and for all of his service to our country we should be grateful. And I would just like to say that for a lot of those people, the Linda Brickhouses, the Kentues at the grassroots political network, and all of the people he worked with, John Macklin on the disadvantaged business efforts, the minority business efforts, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), who he worked with shoulder to shoulder developing the political machinery in our city, at least in terms of the Democratic Party, but he also reached across the aisle and worked quite well with our Republican colleagues to make our city what it is today.

We are indebted. And I join my colleague from the First Congressional District in honoring his memory, his legacy, and I know that this House will find appropriate ways as we go forward to more formally recognize his service.

I thank the Speaker for allowing us this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make the point that it is not the assistance that we are providing, that this is assistance that the American public has paid for through their unemployment contributions to the fund. I just share the concerns of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member.