[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 17 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 366 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 366

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 6) to extend for six years the authorizations 
     of appropriations for the programs under the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for certain other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with section 302(f) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shal not exceed two hours equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     section 2 of this resolution. The committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute, as modified, shall be considered by 
     title rather than by section. Each title of the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall 
     be considered as read. Title I of the committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall be considered 
     by title of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, as proposed to be amended by title I. Point of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute, as modified, for failure to comply with clause 7 
     of rule XVI or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute, as modified, shall be in order unless printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution or in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII prior 
     to Friday, February 25, 1994. Before consideration of any 
     other amendment it shall be in order to consider the 
     amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment printed in the 
     report may be offered only in the order printed, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, may amend 
     portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour 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 in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. Amendments caused to be printed 
     by Representative Kildee of Michigan may be considered en 
     bloc, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
     amendment, shall be considered as read, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute, as modified. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill is modified by striking section 8014 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
     proposed to be amended by title I (page 729, line 15, through 
     page 730, line 21).

                              {time}  1025

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sharp). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary half hour of debate time to the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] 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, House Resolution 366 is the rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 6, Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. This 
is an open rule, providing 2 hours of general debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor.
  The rule waives section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act 
against consideration of the bill. The rule makes in order the 
Education and Labor Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
now printed in the bill, as modified by the amendment printed in 
section 2 of the rule, as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment. The committee substitute, as modified, shall be considered 
by title instead of by section with each title considered as read. 
Section 2 deletes a provision of the bill that was within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services and deals with funding 
of impact aid.
  The rule provides that title I of the committee substitute, as 
modified, shall be considered by title of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as proposed to be amended by title I of the 
bill. The exception was approved because title I of the bill consists 
of more than 700 pages; this procedure will permit us to proceed 
through title I in an orderly fashion and to consider individually the 
12 separate and discrete titles it proposes.
  Mr. Speaker, clause 7 of rule XVI and clause 5(a) of rule XXI are 
waived against the committee substitute, as modified. These waivers, 
along with the waiver of the Budget Act, are technical in nature.
  Except as otherwise specified by the rule, only those amendments 
printed in the Congressional Record prior to Friday, February 25, 1994, 
shall be in order. The chairman of the Education and Labor Committee 
made this preprinting request because of the length and complexity of 
the bill and so that Members will have adequate notice of the matters 
upon which they will be required to vote during consideration of the 
bill. I would remind Members that the chairman advised Members on 
February 11 of his intention to ask for the preprinting requirement. In 
addition, the chairman of the Rules Committee on several occasions--
February 17, February 22, and February 23--notified Members of the need 
to have amendments printed in the Congressional Record prior to the 
Rules Committee consideration of H.R. 6.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that the amendments printed in the 
report to accompany the rule shall be considered before the 
consideration of the amendments printed in the Record. The amendments 
are to be considered in the order and manner specified in the report 
and are debatable for 1 hour each. The amendments may amend portions of 
the bill not yet read for amendment, are considered as read, and are 
not subject to amendment nor a demand for a division of the question.
  Mr. Speaker, these two amendments, one to be offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Ford], and the other by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Armey], address the home and private school issue which has, as 
most Members are well aware, been the most volatile matter associated 
with the bill. The amendments will fully address the concerns of those 
who perceived that H.R. 6 could be detrimental to the rights of those 
who teach their children in their homes; the amendments, which clarify 
that nothing in the bill affects home or private schooling, should put 
those concerns to rest and assure those concerned that their rights 
are, and shall continue to be, fully protected. I am confident that the 
2 hours of debate time for these amendments will give the committee and 
Members ample time to explain this situation and the clarifying 
amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that the Kildee amendments printed in 
the Congressional Record may be offered en bloc, may amend portions of 
the bill not yet read for amendment, shall be considered as read, and 
are not subject to a demand for a division of the question. The Kildee 
amendments, Mr. Speaker, are technical in nature and have been agreed 
to by the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 reauthorizes, for 6 years, most of the Federal 
elementary and secondary education programs, including those under the 
1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides aid to 
schools in the form of block grants to State school districts. The 1965 
act accounts for about one-third of all Federal money that goes to 
education programs, so this is an enormous undertaking. Members will, 
under the rule, have ample time to debate the new and, in some case, 
controversial changes being recommended in H.R. 6.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat, this is an open rule. I urge the adoption of 
the resolution so that we may begin consideration of this important 
bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, it is always a rare pleasure--and I do mean 
rare--to come to this floor in support of a rule out of the Rules 
Committee. As my colleagues are aware, nearly 80 percent of the rules 
in this Congress have restricted the amendment process.
  So bringing a nearly open rule to this floor is indeed a pleasurable 
experience. As a poet once put it, ``Sweet is pleasure after pain.'' 
And believe me, some of the gag rules we have had to swallow have been 
very painful.
  So today we feel a little like the guy who has been hit over the head 
repeatedly with a club. It feels so good when it stops. And hopefully, 
it will continue to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee has reported a modified open rule on 
H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act. The only restriction on 
amendments is that they be printed in the Congressional Record prior to 
this Friday, February 25.
  Otherwise, they are subject to debate and amendment under the 5-
minute rule provided they are germane and in compliance with other 
House rules.
  In other words, if Members wish to offer amendments to this bill, 
they should have them put in the Record no later than today. Those 
Members who have already placed their amendments in the Record prior to 
today need not reinsert them.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the open nature of this rule, the Rules 
Committee went out of its way to ensure that a very controversial issue 
relating to private education and teacher certification will be dealt 
with first under this rule--not once, but twice.
  The rule first provides for 2 hours of general debate, after which 
the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Ford, and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] will each be permitted to offer an 
amendment to fix the problem of teacher certification and its impact on 
private education. Each of those amendments is subject to 1 hour of 
debate.
  The Ford fix strikes the controversial Miller language in the bill 
dealing with teacher certification and adds a new section in title 9 
which states, ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to affect home 
schools.''
  Mr. Armey's amendment is what I would call a super-fix in that it 
contains a new section in title 9 which reads, and I quote:

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, 
     encourage or authorize any federal control over any aspect of 
     any private, religious, or home school that does not receive 
     funds or does not participate in programs or services under 
     this Act.

  I want to emphasize that these amendments are mutually exclusive. 
That is, this is not a so-called king-of-the-hill rule that advantages 
one amendment over the other. Members can vote for both and both can be 
adopted as part of the final bill.
  I want to commend Chairman Ford, Subcommittee Chairman Kildee and Mr. 
Armey on agreeing to this procedure. I also want to praise Chairman 
Moakley and the rest of the Rules Committee members on establishing 
this process that will allow us to deal with this controversy upfront, 
today so that those concerned about this matter will not have to wait 
until next week for a final resolution of the problem.
  And, as a side benefit, I might add, the House telephone system 
should also be back to normal after today.
  I do not know of any issue in recent time that has generated so much 
constituent awareness, concern and phone traffic as this one.
  The American people, by the tens of thousands, have flooded both our 
district and Washington offices with phone calls and faxes.
  I am pleased to report that the people have spoken, and the House has 
gotten the message. And I am confident that we will deal with the 
problem today to the satisfaction of those who are vitally concerned 
about home schooling and private and parochial schools.
  There are those who have characterized this as an unnecessary 
solution to a nonexistent problem. But I don't agree with that 
assessment.
  Anyone who has ever had any experience with the Federal bureaucrats 
who write the regulations to implement our laws knows just how 
legitimate some of the fears expressed over this legislation are.
  Any time we leave any loopholes or ambiguous language in the laws we 
enact, the regulation-writers downtown often manage to stretch and bend 
those laws so out of shape that we do not even recognize them. How many 
times have we seen this happen and had to come back and pass a new law 
to clarify the original law in order to eliminate pernicious 
regulations?
  So this was not a matter of public misperception, even if it was a 
problem of inadvertent and ambiguous legislative draftsmanship. The 
concerns of the people are very legitimate given the potential harm 
that can be done in implementing these provisions by way of regulations 
written by unelected bureaucrats with different agendas than ours.
  And those concerns run as deep in my congressional district in New 
York as the district is long--running as it does from New York City up 
to Montreal along the Hudson Valley.
  My district has both a large private and parochial school population 
as well as a large number of families who teach their children at home.
  The families who teach their children at home were especially 
concerned that this bill would place an impossible burden on them by 
requiring certification in specific subject areas, and thereby force 
them to send their children to public schools.
  My district offices alone have received well over a thousand phone 
calls from these concerned parents who are members of such 
organizations as North Country Homeschoolers, and New York State Loving 
Education at Home.
  Believe me, if those parents teach their children as well as they are 
organized, which I am sure they do, then their kids are getting a great 
education.
  Home-schooling is not an area for the Federal Government to be 
intruding into, and I am glad we will be able to put a stop to any 
possibility of that by adopting the Ford and Armey amendments.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the Ford and 
Armey amendments.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           57      12         21       45         79 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Feb. 23, 1994.                                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 218, July 20, 1993....  O         H.R. 2530: BLM authorization,  NA..............  NA........................  .................................
                                           fiscal year 1994-95.                                                                                         
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  .................................
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from New York that 
we have no requests for time on our side.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a 
very, very valuable member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from Sanibel, FL, Mr. Goss.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, the sound of my phones ringing off 
the hook this week was music to my ears--because Americans from all 
over were calling to urge an open rule. Phones were ringing in offices 
of majority Members as well and it worked? We have an open rule. For 
months, Republicans on the Rules Committee have been raising the issue 
about the importance of the rules that govern debate in this House. We 
have made the point that process is substance in the House of 
Representatives--and that open rules are the basis for true 
deliberative democracy. We've complained bitterly about restrictive 
rules that shut down debate and stifle Members' efforts to improve 
legislation. Well this week we had a real breakthrough--we had 
thousands of Americans calling their Congressmen and demanding support 
for an open rule. People understood the importance of allowing all good 
ideas that relate to the education of our children--which concerns 
every family in this country--to be considered by this House. I commend 
Chairman Moakley and Chairman Ford for their willingness to support an 
open rule on H.R. 6. I encourage them--and all the chairmen of the 
committees in this House--to recognize that open rules need not be 
scary things to be avoided at all costs. Perhaps we may see more open 
rules in the days and weeks ahead. I sure hope so. Hopefully, without 
telephone calls as we have seen on this issue.

  H.R. 6 is a complicated bill that seeks to spend $10.5 billion of 
taxpayer's money. We all want to improve the education we give our 
children--but we have legitimate differences of opinion about how best 
to reach that goal. I oppose H.R. 6 in its present form because I think 
it is too much Government and too much interference into the 
decisionmaking of local school boards and communities. The bill 
contains a very expensive unfunded mandate, benignly labeled 
``opportunity-to-learn standards,'' that will straightjacket our school 
systems and divert their limited resources. The bill also contains 
highly controversial language that could put an end to home schooling 
in some States--langauge I understand we will have the chance to 
correct through the Armey amendment, which this rule allows.
  Finally, H.R. 6 contains funding distribution formulas that depend on 
a highly subjective definition of ``poverty districts.'' This could end 
up wreaking real havoc in areas like southwest Florida, where those 
people truly in need will fall between the cracks. Mr. Speaker, I 
support this open rule--because it gives us a chance to improve this 
bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I take it the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson] still does not have additional speakers. So, Mr. 
Speaker, let me just say that here in Washington we have several new 
residents from the great State of Arkansas; one occupies the White 
House, and I very rarely agree with him. But another is a very dynamic 
new Member of Congress from Pine Bluff, AR, Mr. Jay Dickey.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, what I am concerned about is H.R. 6. As it stands right 
now, it ought to be voted against and turned down in this body. What I 
am thankful for is two things: One is that someone thought ill enough 
of this bill to put into it that schoolteacher certification was 
necessary. What this did--and the second reason I am thankful--that is, 
the people of America raised up, particularly in Arkansas, and 
overwhelmingly complained about teacher certification, taking education 
away from the families, away from neighborhood schools and from private 
schools and even the public schools. I am thankful for that.
  What we have here is an intrusion of Government trying to come in and 
take the very essence of our educational system and dash it against the 
walls, taking control of everything, even the facilities. That is, 
whether or not we have enough chalk, whether or not we have enough 
paper, whether or not we have enough buildings, that sort of thing. It 
is something that we are going away from at home and toward in 
Washington.
  I am thankful for the many, many people who have called and said 
``no'' to this intrusion of Government and ``yes'' to our control by 
families.
  I am thankful for that, and I am proud to be a representative of that 
cause.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we are missing a couple of speakers, and if 
they do not get here on time, then, if the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson] has no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of our time on our side of the aisle and urge passage of the 
rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have no requests for time either, and 
I yield back the balance of my time. I urge my colleagues to adopt the 
rule, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sharp). Pursuant to House Resolution 366 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
While House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
H.R. 6.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price], 
as chairman of the Committee on the Whole and requests the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Beilenson], to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1047


                     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. 6) to extend for 6 years the authorizations of appropriations for 
the programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
and for certain other purposes with Mr. Beilenson (chairman pro 
tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Beilenson). Pursuant to the rule, the 
bill is considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] will be 
recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] will be recognized for 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford].
  (Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I rise in support of H.R. 6, Improving America's Schools Act 
of 1994.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the majority's debate 
time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], chairman of the 
subcommittee, who has labored so long and well to put together this 
bill and bring it to the floor; and further, that he have authority, 
when the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] arrives, to yield 10 
minutes of the majority's debate time to the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Owens].
  The minority may want to divide their time in the same way.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, in the 89th Congress, 1965, my 
first year here, we created the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
which we are reauthorizing for the ninth time today. I am extremely 
pleased that in the 103d Congress, my last Congress, we are making the 
most important changes in the act since we first passed it. We are 
bringing it into position where it will serve well, and adjust well to 
the 21st century.
  H.R. 6 reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 and related programs that have been added over the years to make 
them more complementary to local and State reform efforts.
  I want to compliment the ranking Republicans on my committee for 
their cooperation, as in each of the previous eight reauthorization 
bills, so that we are able to bring a bill to the floor that is a 
product of a bipartisan give-and-take.

                              {time}  1050

  I just heard a member of the Committee on Rules talking about a 
poison pill in the bill which is not there anymore, or will not be 
there, because the Republicans, Democrats, and the administration got 
together late last evening and came to an agreement amongst themselves 
on opportunity-to-learn standards. I have cleared that agreement this 
morning with the ranking Republican on the committee. There is no 
longer an issue between us, and will not be, as people will discover 
during the day.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to observe what this bill is not. 
I heard on the radio a little while ago an announcement that the 
Congress was debating a bill to license home schooling. Congress has 
nothing to do with the question of home schooling. Compulsory school 
attendance laws are State laws, and they vary only by virtue of the 
maximum age to which parents are in a public or private accredited 
school.
  Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with the Federal Government. The 
Federal Government has no business now, and it has never had any 
business, trying to tell the States how to run their compulsory school 
attendance laws, and we would not make that attempt here. There was 
unfortunate language adopted in the committee that was ambiguous enough 
so that it could be, as it has been, misconstrued to apply to, quote, 
``home schools'', whatever those are. In my State that is somebody who 
disobeys the compulsory school attendance law and keeps their child at 
home instead of sending them to school. But, be that as it may, they 
feel they have the privilege to do that, and they can argue with their 
own State about whether that is permitted. We do not try to settle that 
one way or another here, and I hope we will not try to create the 
impression today that we are settling that argument one way or another 
because it is none of the Federal Government's business, frankly, how 
the States regulate compulsory school attendance.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Improving America's 
Schools Act.
  The 89th Congress--my first--created the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. I am extremely pleased that in the 104th Congress--my 
last--we are to make the most important changes in the act since we 
first passed it.
  H.R. 6 reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 and related programs to make them more complementary to local and 
State reform efforts. Much has changed in the 29 years of these 
programs. These reforms will carry us into the 21st century.
  The bill adopts the Clinton administration's proposal for 
reauthorizing these important programs with minor modifications. The 
President and Secretary Riley have done an outstanding job of thinking 
through how best the Federal Government can help improve our Nation's 
public schools.
  This legislation uses systemic reform developed in the Goals 2000: 
Educate America Act as the basis of all ESEA programs. That is, all 
programs in H.R. 6 shall help students achieve high academic standards.
  The largest Federal aid program to elementary and secondary education 
is chapter 1, which we are restoring to its original name of title I. 
It remains our primary vehicle to assist low-achieving students. But 
under the bill, title I is dramatically changed. Its success will be 
judged on the basis of benefiting students' achieving high academic 
standards, not their scores of multiple-choice tests.
  Moreover school districts and schools are given greater flexibility 
to implement title I through the schoolwide programs option and the 
granting of various waivers. Over the 5 years of the authorization, the 
proportion of children in poverty required to qualify for title I 
schoolwide projects will drop from 75 to 60 percent. H.R. 6 also grants 
the Secretary of Education broad authority to waive statutory and 
regulatory requirements that impede the ability of States and school 
districts to achieve the goals of the act. And prescriptive Federal 
requirements governing assessments have been eliminated.
  In exchange for increased flexibility, schools, and school districts 
will be held accountable for student achievement. Their progress will 
be measured by high-quality State assessments.
  Schools that make inadequate progress for 3 consecutive years will be 
subject to corrective action by the school district. Corrective action 
may include reduced decisionmaking authority at the school, alternate 
governance, reordering of school staff, and granting of students 
transfers to other schools in the district.
  For the first time, school districts will be held accountable for the 
gains of title I children. School districts whose students fail to make 
adequate progress toward the State standards for 4 consecutive years 
shall be subject to corrective action by the State. Corrective action 
in this instance may include dismissing or reassigning school district 
employees, the appointment of a receiver or trustee to administer the 
district, and removal of a school from the district's jurisdiction. All 
these actions would have to be consistent with applicable State laws.
  Finally, the formula for distributing title I funds has been modified 
so that all new appropriations will be better targeted to areas with 
high concentrations of poverty. In other words, it maintains the 
current formula at 1994 appropriations levels and applies a greater 
proportion of any new funding to high-poverty areas. I am proud of our 
agreement on the formula. The Committee on Education and Labor approved 
it 40 to 2, drawing support from Members representing diverse 
geographic and demographic areas.
  H.R. 6 includes other important initiatives. The Eisenhower 
Mathematics and Science Education Act has been expanded to encompass 
professional development in all core academic subjects. A new 
technology program will help schools bring their classrooms into the 
modern era. New authority is provided for loans to build and renovate 
school, a crying need in many districts. Finally, the bill reauthorizes 
the Bilingual Education Act, Magnet Schools, Drug Free Schools and 
Communities Act, and Impact Aid.
  Mr. Chairman, these programs are the sum of Federal support for 
elementary and secondary education. H.R. 6 builds on our three decades 
of experience and represents a step forward by setting a coherent 
framework for Federal aid and by granting States, school districts, and 
schools increased flexibility in exchange for greater accountability.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am inserting in the Record at this point an exchange 
of correspondence between me and the Honorable Ronald V. Dellums, 
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, concerning a 
jurisdictional matter; and, I express my appreciation to Chairman 
Dellums for his cooperation in bringing H.R. 6 to the floor:

         Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
           Representatives,
                                 Washington, DC, February 3, 1994.
     Hon. Ronald V. Dellums,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As we discussed last evening, the 
     Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational 
     Education adopted an amendment requiring that the payments 
     for military-related children under the Impact Aid Program be 
     provided by the Secretary of Defense. Mrs. Mink, from Hawaii, 
     offered this amendment as the Subcommittee considered H.R. 6, 
     a bill to extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     (ESEA), the Impact Aid Program, and related Acts, during mark 
     up Tuesday.
       This letter is to respectfully request that your Committee 
     waive a jurisdictional claim to consider that amendment in 
     H.R. 6. We would very much appreciate your favorable 
     consideration of this request since it will expedite passage 
     of our legislation.
       Mrs. Mink offered this amendment and the Subcommittee 
     adopted it because of a feeling on our part that the 
     responsibility for children of military and civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense ought to be borne by 
     that Department. We especially believe this is true now that 
     the military is reassigning so many personnel as it closes 
     bases and shifts responsibilities. The effect of these 
     actions is to place very large burdens on school districts, 
     and unfortunately the U.S. Department of Education has not 
     been able to secure adequate appropriations to alleviate the 
     old or the new burdens.
       Further, the Committee on Education and Labor believes that 
     the shift of this responsibility to the Defense Department 
     will allow us to add money to the ESEA Title I formula. The 
     formula adopted by the Subcommittee on Tuesday concentrates 
     ``new'' dollars on schools with high levels of poverty.
       Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter. We 
     look forward to working with you in the future.
       With kind regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                  William D. Ford,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                 Washington, DC, February 8, 1994.
     Hon. William D. Ford,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am in receipt of your letter asking 
     that the Committee on Armed Services waive any claim to 
     referral of the bill, H.R. 6, that might result from 
     provisions added to the bill during mark-up in your 
     committee. In particular, I understand that the bill has been 
     amended in subcommittee to include a provision directing the 
     Secretary of Defense to transfer the total amount of funds 
     needed to administer the Impact Aid program.
       Please understand that several Members of the Armed 
     Services Committee represent congressional districts that 
     include school districts affected by the Impact Aid program, 
     and they have a keen interest in this program. In addition, 
     the Readiness Subcommittee is presently engaged in a thorough 
     review of all DoD spending and perspectives on educational 
     matters which they plan to address during consideration of 
     the fiscal year 1994 budget.
       A cursory polling of the Members show that they would not 
     be agreeable to waiving jurisdiction over this issue given 
     this long standing interest in this matter and the 
     significant change to the funding structure of a major 
     program this amendment provides without first careful 
     analysis and consideration of the issue. For these reasons I 
     find myself precluded from unilateral action on my part to 
     granting your request and feel that this dictates that I 
     bring this matter up formally before the Members of the 
     committee.
       I appreciate your effort to work cooperatively on this 
     matter, and I am ready to work with you toward a resolution 
     of this issue in a way that satisfies the concerns of both of 
     our committees. I regret that the present circumstances 
     preclude a more favorable reply. I look forward to talking to 
     you personally on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Ronald V. Dellums,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____

         Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
           Representatives,
                                Washington, DC, February 11, 1994.
     Hon. Ronald V. Dellums,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of February 8, 
     1994, concerning the provision in H.R. 6, the Improving 
     America's Schools Act of 1994, as ordered reported, which 
     seeks to make the Department of Defense responsible for 
     funding Impact Aid.
       I acknowledge the jurisdictional interest of the Committee 
     on Armed Services in this provision as evidenced by my letter 
     to you of February 3. I do, however, continue to urge you to 
     forego requesting sequential referral of the bill as that 
     would necessarily delay its consideration in the House. I 
     will be pleased to support a request that the Committee on 
     Rules, in fashioning a rule for H.R. 6, provide that the 
     provision in question be stricken prior to House 
     consideration of the bill. In other words, the text before 
     the House would not contain that language. In addition, it 
     is my intention to seek a rule for consideration of the 
     bill which permits all amendments otherwise in order under 
     the Rules of the House, and affords no special status to 
     any particular amendment. The only limitation on 
     amendments I might request would be a preprinting 
     requirement. Finally, our correspondence would be included 
     in this Committee's report to acknowledge the Committee on 
     Armed Services' jurisdictional claim.
       Thank you for your consideration and cooperation.
       With kind regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                  William D. Ford,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 1994.
     Hon. William D. Ford,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your letter of February 11 
     asking that the Committee on Armed Services forego its 
     request for sequential referral of H.R. 6, a bill which, as 
     reported, includes a provision designed to make the 
     Department of Defense responsible for funding the Impact Aid 
     Program.
       In recognition of your committee's desire to bring this 
     legislation expeditiously before the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Armed Services will not 
     insist upon its claim to have H.R. 6 sequentially referred. 
     However, this action is not to be interpreted as waiving this 
     committee's jurisdiction over the provisions in question. 
     This agreement is conditioned upon your promises to support a 
     request to the Committee on Rules that the so called ``Mink 
     amendment'' be removed from the bill that is to be considered 
     by the House or the Committee of the Whole and to seek a rule 
     that affords no special status or protection to this or any 
     other amendment filed for preprinting. Moreover, in the event 
     that the Mink amendment should be so filed and ultimately 
     pass the House, this committee will seek to be appointed 
     conferees for this and other provisions within its 
     legislative jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference.
       I appreciate your including our correspondence on this 
     matter in your report on H.R. 6, and would further ask that 
     it be included as a part of the record during consideration 
     of this bill by the House.
       Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this 
     matter. I look forward to working with you during 
     consideration of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Ronald V. Dellums,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act 
of 1994, reauthorizes and amends most of the Federal Government 
programs that provide assistance to elementary and secondary education 
in our country. The majority of these programs are included in the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and it would provide 
approximately $10 billion of assistance to States and local school 
districts in fiscal year 1994, and hopefully more in 1995.
  The largest of these programs, title I, provides funding to over 90 
percent of the school districts in the country. Other programs 
authorized by H.R. 6 include Even Start and migrant education, the 
Magnet Schools Assistance Act, Indian education, an expanded Dwight D. 
Eisenhower Professional Development Program, chapter 2, the Jacob K. 
Javits Gifted and Talented Program, Impact Aid and the National 
Education Statistics Act. The bill is the basic Federal education bill.
  Much attention has been focused recently on one aspect of it, but the 
bill is 901 pages long. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] 
and I have worked many, many months over this bill.
  The authorization for 12 existing programs, Mr. Chairman, are not 
extended in H.R. 6. Those programs are eliminated.
  The purpose of H.R. 6 is not only to extend the life of programs, but 
to reshape them. Most of these programs were developed in the 1960's, 
before the current wave of school reform began. It is time for them to 
be updated so that they can better assist States and local school 
districts in their efforts to reform public schools.
  And I say ``assist'' because I always believed that education is a 
local function, a State responsibility, and a very, very important 
Federal concern, and we want to exercise that concern very sensitively.
  The bill which established the Department of Education forbade us to 
get involved in the matter of curriculum.
  Last year the House passed the Goals 2000, Educate America Act, which 
establishes a new framework for the Federal Government to provide 
school reform assistance. H.R. 6 helps to fill in the framework by 
refashioning Federal programs so that they are an integral part of 
State and local school reform efforts.
  One of the primary reflections of this is the proposed revision of 
the title I formula. H.R. 6 proposes to distribute title I funds in two 
parts: First, an amount equal to the fiscal year 1994 appropriation 
will be distributed according to the formula in current law, including 
the current law requirement that 10 percent of the funds be allocated 
using the concentration grant formula. Now, Mr. Chairman, funds in 
excess of that fiscal year 1994 appropriation will be distributed 
through a new weighted student formula where everyone would get a 
portion of the increased appropriations, where students in areas of 
greater concentrations of poverty would receive more.
  Other major changes included for the first time: Tying the 
achievement of title I students to high State standards, and allowing 
schoolwide programs to combine other Federal education funds with the 
title I funds for more coordinating programs serving all children. We 
also replace existing burdensome testing requirements with a more 
sensible system based on State assessments, and we also make it easier 
to serve limited English proficient and disabled children in title I 
programs.
  The heart of this program is to demand greater education achievement 
in exchange for much more freedom in the use of Federal funds, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has been fighting for that 
freedom for many, many years. He has been talking flexibility for many, 
many years, and with his help and input we have put a great deal more 
flexibility into this bill. As a matter of fact, the whole bill can be 
summed up in two words: ``flexibility'' and ``accountability.'' The 
legislation is replete with provisions giving educators the flexibility 
to combine Federal programs, to use Federal aid in whatever fashion is 
needed to improve education and to seek waivers from rules and 
regulations whenever it is necessary to improve achievement. But the 
accountability with that flexibility is equally clear. If educational 
gains are not achieved, then school districts are expected to help 
schools improve, and, if there is still no success, then States are 
expected to intervene to secure the results.
  H.R. 6 calls for the most important changes in Federal aid to 
elementary and secondary education since that assistance was first 
substantially established in the 1960's, the first year of Chairman 
Ford's membership in the Congress and on the committee. The whole 
purpose is to make Federal programs part and parcel of school reform 
for all children instead of being separate programs for special 
children, and that flexibility will help in that fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, by passing this legislation the Congress will give a 
substantial boost to improving education for all children, including 
those who have too often been forgotten.
  Mr. Chairman, I truly believe that we are involved in the most 
important reauthorization since this program was first enacted in 1965, 
and I want to thank all the members of the Committee on Education and 
Labor, and their staffs, for the many hours of work that have gone into 
developing this bill.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] who is 
the ranking Republican member of the full committee and the ranking 
Republican member of the subcommittee. He is tough, he is hard, but he 
loves education, and we have fought some battles, and he has a great 
deal of Mr. Goodling in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I really looked forward to this session 
of Congress primarily because I knew we were going to be reauthorizing 
ESEA, and Head Start. I looked forward to doing that because others 
seem to be joining in my crusade to bring about quality in these two 
areas. In the past, Mr. Chairman, so many times the auditors went out 
only to look to see whether the pennies went to where someone thought 
the pennies should go. No one looked to see whether or not there was, 
in fact, quality in the programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not condemning the programs. I am saying the 
programs have not been good enough in order to help the disadvantaged 
become less disadvantaged, or not disadvantaged at all. Therefore, I 
looked forward to the fact that we were really going to emphasize 
quality.
  We have spent a total of $38 billion on chapter 1. We have spent a 
total $27 billion on Head Start. We never recompleted any Head Start 
Program, and, as I said, the auditors were not looking for quality.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased that many were joining in with the 
flexibility chorus to get away from the idea of setasides and the 
constant idea that categoricals are the only way to go.

                              {time}  1100

  Many others were questioning our micromanaging public education from 
Washington, DC, and I was happy to hear that.
  I would like at this time to praise public education. We spend so 
much time bad-mouthing public education. It would be well if all 
Members of Congress would spend perhaps a month in several different 
schools all day long and just see what it is that a teacher has to go 
through in a day's time. We act as if something is quite different 
about the quality that comes out of a public school than what used to 
come out. I went to a 2-room eighth grade, and many of those people 
never went beyond the eighth grade.
  They did not have to go beyond the eight grade; they went out and got 
a job. Now they all go beyond the eight grade, and it makes things 
very, very difficult.
  We have also said to public educators, ``You have to do everything 
parents used to have to do,'' and that makes it very, very difficult 
for public educators.
  I have to say that every time I interview for the Academies, each 
year the students are better than the students before. They are high-
quality students. So I want to make sure we do not spend all of our 
time bad-mouthing public education, because they do many things well. 
We can do things to help them do things better. We can also do things 
to hinder their opportunity if we try to micromanage from Washington, 
DC.
  I want to compliment the staffs from both sides, as Chairman Ford and 
Chairman Kildee did.
  When the bill left the staffs, it was an outstanding bill, and we 
should have quit at that time. We should have let the staffs bring the 
bill to the floor. Unfortunately, we had a subcommittee markup and a 
full committee markup, and then the members got all involved in the 
situation and messed up the good work the staffs had done in so many 
instances. We are going to correct that, hopefully, but unfortunately, 
that did happen.
  There have been some disappointments. My first disappointment came, I 
guess, when the administration combined Eisenhower math and science and 
chapter 2 into a professional development program. There are many 
pitfalls in doing that. The first one, of course, is that there are 
very few good models of professional development out there. My fear 
was, as I said to Professor Smith, that the same people who sent the 
teachers out initially will also do this great professional development 
program. I would hate to see that happen. As I said, there are not many 
good models out there.
  Second, we are really not ready to get into the business of 
reeducating teachers and helping teachers based on the new standards 
that are voluntary and that will be much more difficult and tougher 
than those to which they were originally teaching. So there are many 
reasons why we should not have gone as rapidly into that area as we 
did.
  Furthermore, many districts have gone beyond professional development 
already in their reform movement. They are ready for step 3, step 4, 
and step 5, and we should not hinder that. But, second, there were 
witnesses at every hearing we had who said how important chapter 2 
money was to the whole reform effort. It was the only money that the 
local districts could get their hands on to try to reform the districts 
to make them a better school system. Has we not had the support of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] we would have been 
kissing goodbye to what every person who testified said about needing 
chapter 2 money.

  I realize that people keep thinking about the chapter 2 program of 10 
years ago or 20 years ago, and that it may have been abused or misused, 
et cetera. It was not the fault of the local districts or the fault of 
the States; it was our fault on the Federal level. We never told them 
what it was we wanted them to accomplish when they get to the end of 
the line. All we sent was money. We never sent the money in a timely 
fashion. They never had time to plan how it would be spent. So in NDA 
and all the other programs we wasted millions of dollars. That has all 
been changed. In the last 5 years their whole effort with chapter 2 has 
been, how do you get the school districts to be better school districts 
so that all students will grow and grow academically. We wanted to 
ensure they would get a quality education. So that was the first 
disappointment I had. As I said, hopefully we are on the right track, 
and thanks again to the Members that I mentioned, we will correct that.
  The next disappointment, of course, deals with the end result when 
the bill came out of full committee in relationship to reinventing 
Government. Boy, we really reinvented Government in this respect. We 
have eight new reporting requirements in title I, four in title II, 
part A, four in title II, part B, one in title II, part C, two in title 
II, part D, one in title II, part E, one in title III, one in section 
4, GEPA, title II, and one in title III, part B. There are 22 new 
reporting requirements. I do not believe that was what the Vice 
President had in mind when he was reinventing Government.
  The next disappointment came as we were marking-up where we did get 
into the business of micro-managing--of having mandates without money. 
We have to stop that. School districts could have done so much better 
with all of their students if we had not sent them 95 percent of the 
mandates with relationship to special education, promising them 40 
percent of what it cost to educate special education children and only 
sending them 8 percent. They now have to make up from their local funds 
most of the money to deal with special education which was mandated by 
us on the Federal level. Chairman Kildee and I tried for years to get 
this figure moved up and up so they could take the money they are now 
spending in that area and deal with the entire reform movement with all 
of their students. Hopefully we can do something about that.
  We also got into the business of certification, and I apologize to my 
colleagues for all the problems they have had and the telephone calls 
they have received, because I should have caught that. It came at the 
eighth hour, I believe, of that particular day in the markup. No one on 
either side of the aisle or the staffs had seen the amendment, and 
there was very little discussion. My concern is that we on the Federal 
level certainly have no business whatsoever in micro-managing a school 
district and a State in relationship to certification.
  Every State has certification standards. In my State, if the school 
district does not meet them, they lose their State funds. But keep in 
mind what happens when we micro-manage.
  Suppose you have a rural area and you have one section of chemistry. 
Is this all that chemistry teacher teaches when you pay the teacher 
$30,000 or $40,000? No, they have to teach general science courses.
  They may also have to teach some math courses, as a matter of fact. 
Let us say you have three sections of chemistry, or four, and the 
chemistry teacher can only handle three. So you give the fourth 
section, which would be a general chemistry section, to a general 
science teacher or to an advanced math teacher. You cannot go out and 
hire a new certified chemistry teacher in order to teach one section. 
These are the things we do not think about down here.
  You also get most of your retirements from people who decide not to 
come back to your districts 2 weeks before school opens. Let us say 
that all of a sudden I lose a Spanish teacher. I have to go out and get 
the best academically qualified Spanish-speaking person in the district 
to fill that slot because I cannot steal anybody from someplace else, 
and you have at least 60 or 90 days, depending on the State. So we have 
to think about these things when we try to micro-manage from 
Washington, DC.
  Someone even got into the discipline business. We are now going to 
micro-manage how one disciplines in their districts or in their States. 
Again we send 5 percent of the money and we want to send 95 percent of 
the mandates.
  I want a coordination of services program because I want to break up 
those fiefdoms out there. They all have their little fiefdom, and, boy, 
they do not want to participate or join with anybody else. Well, it is 
the child we are thinking about, so we need them all working together 
for the benefit of that child and that family.

                              {time}  1110

  But, I do not want to stir up a hornet's nest in relationship to 
abortion and planned parenthood. I think we could handle that and not 
stir that up.
  Going then to my hope. My hope is that the corrections that we have 
agreed to will truly make this a bipartisan bill that every Member will 
be happy to support. This bill, coupled with what the Senate does and 
what we will do in conference, will help lead us to a program that is 
bipartisan, that all can support, that will dwell on accountability, as 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] has said, and that will deal 
with flexibility. I am sure the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] and 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] will work with me in this 
effort.
  We have to understand, there is a new breed of educator out there, 
very talented, very creative.
  We have to give them an opportunity to use that talent and that 
creativity. I look forward to the markup today and next week and then 
the conference with the Senate. Hopefully, we will be able to present 
Members a bipartisan bill that will truly bring about reforms that will 
deal with quality education for all students, not just some, but all 
students.
  As the Education and Labor Committee began the process of drafting 
H.R. 6, we were hopeful that we could craft a bipartisan bill that is 
reflective of a national consensus on education reform. While we were 
unable to report a bipartisan bill from committee, I am hopeful that 
H.R. 6 merits the support of all Members by the time we vote on final 
passage.
  Let me begin by outlining some of the positive aspects of H.R. 6. I 
was very pleased that the committee accepted a Republican amendment to 
retain a refocused but flexible chapter 2 program refocused on 
education reform and achievement of the national education goals. Funds 
under this section may be used for technology, library services 
materials, assessments, and the development of instructional and 
educational materials, as long as they are tied to overall school 
reform efforts.
  This section supports, and does not replace, the professional 
development activities provided under the newly revised Eisenhower 
Program. We believe our proposal provides schools with exactly the kind 
of flexibility that is needed to support professional development of 
teachers in all schools.
  Let me be clear on this point: I will fight any effort to strike this 
section from the bill, and I will fight just as strongly an effort to 
tie the appropriations of this program to the appropriations of any 
other program, such as the new Eisenhower Program. If this House wants 
to report a bipartisan bill, the best way to do it would be to retain 
our flexible chapter 2 proposal in H.R. 6 as it is currently written. 
Then, once H.R. 6 becomes law, I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to ensure that this proposal receives the funding it 
deserves.
  I am also pleased by the inclusion of the broad waiver provisions in 
title IX, which will allow schools, local educational agencies, and 
States to receive waivers from Federal requirements and regulations 
under this act which impede their ability to improve student learning 
and achievement.
  I also strongly support the title I funding formula offered by Mr. 
Petri and Mr. Kildee. Their proposal is fair and equitable to all 
regions of the country. It ensures that disadvantaged children, both in 
urban and rural areas, will continue to receive the Federal assistance 
they need. The Kildee-Petri formula recognizes that title I funds 
should follow the children they are intended to serve, and that funding 
shifts due to updated census will be allowed to occur. The Petri-Kildee 
formula is equitable for all regions of the country, and avoids radical 
shifts in funding which could devastate many local programs currently 
serving children.
  It would also calculate grants on an LEA basis rather than county 
basis; current law distributes grants on a county basis. Many school 
districts in this country, such as York City school district in 
Pennsylvania, which are located in relatively wealthy counties are 
ineligible to receive concentration grant money even though the school 
district would be eligible if funds were allocated directly to school 
districts based on district level poverty data. This formula would 
solve this problem and would more precisely target money to poor school 
districts.

  Because it is a program of great importance to me, I would also like 
to highlight some of the significant changes in the Even Start Program. 
First, we have expanded the program to include a high-risk group, 
teenage parents. Instead of waiting until young parents drop out of 
school, placing them at risk of unemployment and dependency on welfare, 
they are now eligible participants in Even Start. This will provide 
them with the support they need to stay in school and to become a true 
partner in their child's education, as well as to obtain the early 
childhood services which will enable their child to start school ready 
to learn.
  We also acknowledge, for the first time, other organizations which 
have a record of providing effective literacy programs, such as Parents 
as Teachers, the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters, and 
the National Center for Family Literacy and have modified the law to 
clarify the eligibility of these organizations to participate in Even 
Start activities. We do not, however, allow these programs to be a 
substitute for Even Start.
  In my view, these programs can be used as components of Even Start, 
rather than operating on their own. For example, a growing number of 
Even Start projects use the Parents as Teachers model for their parent 
training component. Parents as Teachers is a well-recognized, effective 
program. It is not, however, the same comprehensive model as Even 
Start. Although I endorse the usage of this model by Even Start 
programs to fill their parent training requirement, I want to stress 
that an Even Start project must have all three components: parent 
training, parent education, and early childhood development to qualify 
for funding under this act.
  There are other positive aspects of this bill, including charter 
schools; strengthened parental involvement provisions that provide 
literacy services to chapter 1 parents; a provision allowing schools to 
use up to 5 percent of the funds received under this act for the 
coordination of health and social services to meet the needs of their 
students and their families, and an improved chapter 1 Neglected and 
Delinquent Program that more effectively focuses on the needs of 
troubled youth.
  In addition, we have provided additional flexibility in the bilingual 
education program concerning the use of funds for special alternative 
programs in instances where a school has been unable to hire bilingual 
teachers or where there are too many students with a high diversity of 
languages and they are unable to operate a transitional bilingual 
education program.
  Yet, despite the positive aspects of H.R. 6, I continue to have 
concerns with other provisions of the bill. My foremost concern deals 
with the bill's ``opportunity to learn standards'' provisions. In my 
view, the ``opportunity to learn standards'' provisions of the bill 
reported by our committee were completely unacceptable.
  In my view, opportunity to learn standards represent a failed policy 
that is based upon inputs into the education system instead of focusing 
on improving student learning. I guess the thing that bothers me the 
most is this: We know from years of research that providing a child 
with an opportunity to learn is far more complicated than equalizing 
school resources.
  The opportunity to learn standards in H.R. 6 would have forced the 
entire education community into an endless bureaucratic debate about 
the credentials of school personnel and counting pieces of chalk and 
school supplies. Likely to be lost in this never-ending debate about 
inputs is how to help kids learn what they need to know to be 
productive citizens. That is hardly a way to help poor schools provide 
a better education for their children.
  I am pleased to be offering a compromise amendment with Chairman 
Kildee today that will address many of the concerns I have raised with 
regard to this provision. This amendment does the following: It makes 
it clear that the implementation of ``model opportunity to learn 
standards'' are voluntary and not mandated; it narrows down the 
original list of eight standards that a State must develop to just two; 
it greatly limits the paperwork burden on schools and local education 
agencies; it retains the provision in the bill saying that the 
Secretary may not deny title I funds to a State based upon the specific 
content of its ``opportunity to learn standards;'' and, it clarifies 
that ``model opportunity to learn standards'' cannot be enforced 
through litigation and cannot be used to mandate equalized spending in 
States.
  I continue to believe that ``opportunity to learn standards'' should 
be completely voluntary and that, in the best of all worlds, they would 
not be in this bill at all. However, in the spirit of compromise, I 
believe that this provision is acceptable for the purposes of House 
consideration of H.R. 6.
  As Members of the House know all too well, another major problem with 
H.R. 6 concerns its impact on home schools. I strongly support the 
right of home schoolers to be free from Federal regulatory and 
statutory intrusion, and I am pleased that amendments will be offered 
to make it clear that this bill will have no effect on the ability of 
parents to provide a home-based education for their children.
  I am also concerned that H.R. 6 creates too many unnecessary 
categorical programs that add up to more than $1 billion of additional 
authorizations that, if funded, will attract needed scarce dollars away 
from more worthy programs like Even Start, title I, chapter 2, Drug-
Free Schools, and other important programs that have traditionally been 
priorities for Republicans and Democrats alike. That, of course, is the 
last thing any one wants.
  Another objection to H.R. 6 is the failure of the committee to accept 
language which would prohibit the use of funds appropriated under this 
act to provide family planning and health reproductive services as part 
of coordination of services projects funded under this act. An 
amendment will be offered to rectify this situation later in this 
debate.
  In conclusion, this bill affects almost every American public school, 
and is the last reauthorization that will have any effect on our 
education system before the beginning of the 21st century. The only way 
real change in education occurs is with bipartisan political support 
and ownership from the education community. I remain hopeful that we 
can work out our disagreements so that this bill is able to gain broad, 
bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson], a very active member of the Committee on Education and 
Labor, who usually comes and stays during the entire time.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, the kind remarks by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania are only reflective of the esteem, friendship, and respect 
that I have for him and also for the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford].
  I have to tell Members that they may not always agree with the 
outcome but they will never find three men more committed to the 
education of our country than these three individuals. It has been a 
privilege to work with them.
  I thought I would, this morning, share with my colleagues, as we 
discuss and begin to discuss the reauthorization of elementary, 
secondary education, the Business Week front page cover article this 
week: ``The Learning Revolution.'' Because we are at the point of 
history today.
  This is the last reauthorization to have any impact on the structure 
of America's education delivery system, as we enter the 21st century. 
That is why it becomes so essential that education policy be done in a 
bipartisan manner.
  Yesterday we were in a meeting trying to resolve one of the 
contentious issues, and someone asked Secretary Riley what his position 
was. And he said, to his credit, ``My position is to work this out so 
that we can have bipartisan support for education.'' That is why I 
think Members on both sides of the aisle have such high regard for this 
man and his leadership at the Department, and that is why it is 
incumbent upon each and every one of us to figure out how we can do 
that.
  President Bush, to his credit, and now followed by President Clinton 
began that attempt at bipartisan revolution in education through the 
Goals 2000 program that hopefully we will enact in the near future.
  There are no less than 110,000 public schools in this country that 
will be affected by this legislation. In my State of Wisconsin, there 
are 428 public schools.
  I want my colleagues to know that literally half of those public 
schools have less than 1,000 students in their enrollment, which means 
that we must be very careful as we answer those basic questions of how 
do we provide the leadership and structure for 21st century education 
without suffocating and killing local education in the process so that 
all our educators do is comply with rules, regulations and paperwork 
and never have the time to do the all important business of educating 
and preparing not only our children but, in the 21st century, also our 
adults for the lifelong learning components of a 21st century, high 
technology, global education criteria.
  The basic program of Federal aid to education is obviously the 
chapter 1 or title I program which responds to the educationally 
disadvantaged children of our society. There is an attempt in the 
legislation in front of us to try to extend the purpose of this bill as 
a condition for literally schoolwide reform.
  The questions we must ask ourselves in this process, as we attempt to 
improve the title I program, is, will these reforms be voluntary or 
mandatory? Will they be done through simply standards and assessments? 
And if those standards and assessments are developed, and should they 
be developed at the Federal, State, or local level, and who will comply 
and enforce those particular programs?
  We will hear a lot of debate as we go forth over a chapter 1 formula 
that is being changed in this bill. Let me simply say, there is no such 
thing as a fair and good chapter 1 formula, and we will never 
resolve that issue until the last point of conference and even, 
perhaps, at that point in time.

  More important, I think, is how we allow schools to use money they 
get, which for most schools will unfortunately be less money than they 
have had in the past. I have many school districts that receive less 
than $30,000 a year in their chapter 1 program. We must be very careful 
that we do not pass 17 pages of new legislative mandates and reporting 
requirements on a local school district that receives that amount of 
money.
  The second thing we must understand is that as much as we want to 
encourage reform, we must recognize that reform means flexibility. It 
means allowing local schools, wherever they might be, to pioneer in 
unique and different ways.
  That is why chapter 2 is so essential to the final outcome of this 
legislation. I have been a strong advocate of chapter 2, because it 
allows every school in this country the unique flexibility to do what 
is necessary to upgrade their school reform programs.
  In Wisconsin, literally 275 schools last year used their chapter 2 
funds for technology and computer upgrading. This is the only place 
where we give schools that kind of flexibility to respond to the unique 
needs of those particular programs.
  One of the amendments which is included in the present chapter 2 and 
which we will offer as a separate title in this legislation is 21st 
century community learning centers. We must recognize that in the 21st 
century, school boundaries, school buildings, school subjects and 
school students, as we know them today, are all going to be outdated by 
the technology revolution. We must empower and enable our schools to 
respond and meet those challenges through these kind of changes in 
public policy.
  There will be a number of amendments that I hope will be adopted on a 
bipartisan basis. I tell Members, as we begin consideration of this 
bill, unfortunately the legislation coming from the subcommittee and 
the full committee did not receive the support of many Republicans, 
myself included, because we saw it as too little flexibility, too 
little money, too much regulation, paperwork, and bureaucracy.
  I am hopeful that the negotiations that have occurred over the last 
few days and will continue on to next week will allow us to solve the 
home school problem, will allow us to make sure that the opportunity to 
learn standard is truly voluntary and will make sure that we take the 
other steps to guarantee schools the flexibility necessary to become 
the 21st century learning centers we want them to be.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin. He played a 
very major role in the postreporting period of the bill and negotiating 
two very different areas. He was available. He came up with great 
ideas, and he is to be commended.
  He wanted, I think, from the very beginning to be able to come out 
here with a bipartisan bill. I think through his negotiations in the 
postreporting period, along with those of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], we will have that bill. I commend him for 
that.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
6, a bill that, as currently drafted, is an attempt to federalize the 
delivery of education in America.
  H.R. 6 mandates that local schools meet yet-to-be developed 
opportunity to learn standards [OTLS].
  The Federal Government likes to establish standards, but we cannot 
seem to find a way to pay for them. Do I need to remind my colleagues 
of the millions, if not billions, that local school districts have had 
to fork over to meet Federal asbestos removal standards? A laudable 
goal, but one that has been unfunded.
  Well. H.R. 6 is the asbestos removal approach to education. It 
provides all the mandates, but no money to pay for them. The Federal 
Government makes a multitude of new demands, but it is accountable for 
none.
  Like all Members of the House, I have heard from hundreds, if not 
thousands, of constituents concerned with the home schooling provisions 
in the bill. Let me simply say this--
  I firmly believe that States and local governments are best suited 
for establishing curriculum, teacher certification, and school academic 
standards. The Federal Government has no business whatsoever, beyond 
current civil rights law, to impose its imprint on these so-called 
sacred areas of education.
  I'm hopeful that during this debate, we can come to an accommodation, 
on this issue, so that we can get on to other issues such as addressing 
the opportunity to learn standards, eliminating the litany of new 
Federal education programs, and creating a more flexible approach to 
Federal education policy.
  Let me also touch on an issue that we'll be debating when I offer an 
amendment to title IV of the bill, which reauthorizes the Drug Free 
Schools and Communities Act.
  It's a bipartisan amendment that would restore the Governor's share 
to drug free schools at 20 percent, and establish a nonpartisan 
advisory committee that would map out the funding uses of the 
Governor's share.
  H.R. 6, on the other hand, creates a new bureaucratic requirement 
that local schools spend a portion of their limited Federal drug free 
moneys for community outreach. The Governor's share is already doing 
just that very successfully in may States.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said, this will be 
Congress' last attempt, before the year 2000, to greatly influence the 
education reform movement. I hope that its a good influence and not 
another heavy handed, mandating, and complicating Federal approach to 
education.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, Improving 
America's Schools Act.
  I first want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], for his unflagging efforts to reach 
consensus and report out a bill we can all support.
  I also want to express my admiration for the chairman of the 
Committee on Education and Labor, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ford], who presided over one of the longest uninterrupted mark-ups in 
history. Every member of the Committee on Education and Labor was given 
the opportunity to help craft the bill before you today.
  H.R. 6 will help schools, students, parents and educators in every 
district in America. I want to tell my colleagues just a few of the 
many reasons why local schools and communities want them to vote for 
H.R. 6:
  First, I am particularly proud of coordinated services, title X, in 
this bill. Recently, both George Will and David Broder, two newspaper 
writers who rarely agree, had separate columns in the Washington Post 
on how factors outside the classroom impact on students' ability to 
learn inside the classroom. Coordinated services, as authorized in this 
bill allows local public schools to use some of their Federal Education 
funds to join with other community partners to identify and make 
available health and social services that students need so that they 
can enter a classroom ready to learn.
  Next, the chapter I programs that are currently helping educationally 
disadvantaged students in our local schools will be able to keep up 
their good work. The new formula in H.R. 6 makes poor schools in poor 
neighborhoods eligible for more money, while preserving the funding for 
current chapter I programs for all educationally disadvantaged 
children.
  Under H.R. 6, a program that has already proven successful for math 
and science teachers has been expanded to give all core curriculum 
teachers new opportunities for professional growth and expanded 
technical knowledge.
  Finally, even the school buildings in your district will benefit from 
H.R. 6. A 1991 survey found that 74 percent of the public school 
buildings in America are in such bad condition they should be replaced. 
With the help of a new Federal loan program in H.R. 6 local communities 
will create jobs by making needed improvements to deteriorating school 
facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, a vote for H.R. 6 is a vote for local flexibility. I 
encourage my colleagues to show their confidence in their local schools 
and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6 and urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill called the Improving 
America's Schools Act of 1994. We would be hard pressed to think of a 
more inappropriate name for a bill that is nothing more than a power 
grab by the education bureaucracy.
  It is amazing that Washington still does not get it. True education 
reform must be driven locally, by parents, teachers, local 
administrators, and the community as a whole. It is ludicrous to think 
that the Federal Government can successfully reform our failing public 
education system by setting a single uniform model for reform when our 
schools, school districts, and communities are as varied as the East is 
from the West.
  An article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal bears witness to the 
fact that the education unions are unwilling to allow true education 
reform. They would rather maintain the failing status quo. Every time a 
truly innovative idea is brought up, the teachers' unions intimidate 
the majority in this body into imposing conditions that limit the 
success of reforms. Unwilling to relinquish their power to parents, 
principals, local administrators, and the communities in general, the 
education establishment maintains a vice-like grip on our schools.
  H.R. 6 will do little to improve America's schools. It contains 
opportunity to learn standards which will do nothing to help children 
learn and instead, focus the energies of educators on endless 
bureaucratic debate about the condition of school facilities, 
professional development, the alignment of instructional practices with 
content standards, and the extent to which schools do not discriminate 
based on gender in policies, curricula, and instructional practices. 
While these are important, they are not essential to the education of 
America's children.
  The compromise amendment that will be offered later in the debate 
will not change the fact that opportunity to learn standards will do 
nothing to help children learn. Making the standards voluntary simply 
delays what will inevitably turn into an unfunded mandate on the 
States.
  H.R. 6 devalues the teaching of educational basics and fails to 
promote true education reform by omitting support for public and 
private school choice. It claims to enhance parental involvement, but 
in reality, it further demotes the role of parents in the education of 
their children. During the committee markup of the bill, an amendment 
that would have allowed parents to withdraw their children from 
activities they view as adverse to their children's personal beliefs 
was defeated. This is just one example of hostility toward parents 
embodied in this bill.
  This bill was brought to the forefront by a group of educators who 
are normally silent on the content of Federal education bills. The 
home-school community has done a commendable job of making us all aware 
of provisions that would adversely affect them. While I believe 
strongly that we must protect the rights of parents to educate their 
children as they wish, I find in unfortunate that only the home-school 
provisions in this bill will be fixed. The fact remains that this bill 
is, in its entirety, caters to the education bureaucracy and epitomizes 
micromanagement by the Federal Government. The opportunity to learn 
standards continue the dangerous trend of avoiding the difficult task 
of enacting true education reform. We must stop passing bills that 
repeat the mistakes of the past. We must stop sanctioning failed 
policies by renaming them and declaring them the solution.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 6. Even if 
we pass all the so-called perfecting amendments being offered today, 
the fact remains that this bill is bad policy for education, for our 
children, and for the Nation.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the 
chairman of the committee for his patience and his long perseverance on 
the effort to bring this bill to the floor. The hearings started in the 
early part of last year, and the deliberations continued up until the 
present, giving opportunities for all parties to be heard.
  I want to congratulate Mr. Kildee and congratulate his staff, and all 
of the staff of the various subcommittees that worked on the bill. The 
kind of monumental labor that went into this bill lets it be known that 
it is a big lie that the staff does very little, or we need less staff, 
or staff is irrelevant. Staff is very vital, and without well-
qualified, knowledgeable staff, we would not have been able to produce 
this bill.

                              {time}  1130

  All those who want to cut legislative staff should realize that they 
would be cutting very much into the quality of the production of good 
legislation for the American people.
  I want to also make some general comments about the legislation 
before I talk specifically about the section which deals with drug-free 
schools and safe schools. I would like to say first that this is one 
component, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is one component 
of the overwhelming effort that will be needed in America in order for 
us to revitalize our education system and be able to go into the year 
2000 and the new world order with a system which is capable of meeting 
the needs of the new world order.
  Now we have a real problem in that the involvement of the Federal 
Government is so minimal in education. We can increase that involvement 
and could increase that involvement greatly and still not at all tread 
on the feet of the prerogatives of local education boards and 
policymakers. I am all in favor of much more involvement, and even if 
we increase the Federal expenditure in education from the current 6 
percent to 25 percent of overall educational expenditures in the 
country, it would still be only a small part of it, and 75 percent is 
still left for State and local government, which means they have 75 
percent of the decisionmaking, 75 percent of the control. There is no 
threat to control if the Federal Government has greater involvement.
  Education is a very important part of our national security. We do 
not need a bloated CIA anymore. But we do need to understand that a 
well-educated population is our first line of defense. We need to 
understand that in the global competition that we talk about all of the 
time, economic competition, competition for influence, competition for 
the minds of the people of the world, we are going to have to have a 
very educated population. We are up against nations who generally are 
more involved, their central government is more involved in education 
and our Government is not involved. The performance of our educational 
system as a result I think is much less than it could be. We are behind 
France, we are behind Japan, we are behind Great Britain in terms of 
the quality of the products that come out of our public school systems. 
We need this comparability with other nations. It does not hurt to have 
the Federal Government get more involved. Both the last President and 
the present President recognized that, and all of the Governors 
throughout the States recognize the need to get the Government more 
involved.

  The Governors' Conference came out with six goals. I am all in favor 
of those goals. They came out with a proposal that we have standardized 
content in our curriculum so that those goals could be met. I am all in 
favor of that as long as it does not go overboard and cramp creativity 
at the local level.
  They also want standardized testing and assessments to be uniform 
across the country, basically, or to have a lot in common even though 
they may not be the same from State to State. They want to impose this 
testing, this assessment on the children to see how well they have 
stood up under this standardized approach and met the requirements of 
this standardized curriculum. I say that is OK too.
  There is a third element necessary, however, and that has become very 
controversial. We heard it mentioned a couple of times already. The 
third requirement should be that we need a standard that we hold up to 
the various local education agencies and States in terms of the 
provision of an opportunity for children to learn. We know they need to 
have what is necessary to meet those goals that we want met. They need, 
in order to pass the test that we are going to give: They need to be 
able to have the best books in the library; they need to have the best 
equipment possible in the science laboratories; they need to have 
basically safe schools where lead poisoning and asbestos are not a 
problem. All of these things have to be a part of our consideration of 
going forward with revitalizing America's schools.
  If we have standards for content which are uniform throughout the 
country basically, if we have standards for testing which are uniform 
throughout the country basically, and we give tests based on the 
children's ability to comprehend that curriculum, I can tell Members 
right now where most of the failures would be. We know where the 
failures would be. They will be in the areas where the teachers are not 
qualified. They will be in the areas where the library books are 30 
years old. They will be in the areas where there are no science 
laboratories. We can tell. So it is necessary to have the third set of 
standards. They are no more mandatory than the first two. The first two 
are not mandatory and neither are the opportunity to learn standards. 
These are really models that are set forth as to how we should go about 
approaching, providing the delivery system for young people so that we 
are not inflicting upon young people a set of tests, required tests, 
and not giving them the means to meet those standards in those tests.
  I agree we should have uniform standards a curriculum which prepares 
our youngsters to meet the competition of the new world order. 
Geography is one of those subjects. We are going to have a requirement 
that all youngsters learn geography, and great. But the geography books 
in most of the libraries in my congressional district are 30 years old. 
The history books are 30 years old in the libraries. If they are going 
to learn geography from 30-year-old books, we know the geography that 
they learn will be dead wrong. It is important to know geography in 
order for us to compete if we are trading worldwide in the markets of 
the world. And it requires that we under the psychology of the people 
that we are dealing with. And our diplomacy requires that we understand 
the religion and the culture of the people we are dealing with. We made 
enormous mistakes in foreign policy because we did not understand the 
Middle Eastern culture or the Far Eastern culture. We only understood 
Western cultures. There are many reasons why it makes sense to have 
these new content standards, and it makes sense to have a set of 
assessments so that we can find out whether schools and school 
districts and States are really seriously trying to meet those 
standards.

  But the third part is also very much necessary. The children of 
America will look at the Governors and the President and the Members of 
Congress and say, as the little kid in Hans Christian Andersen's tale 
said, that the emperor has no clothes on. If we are really concerned 
about reform and really going to promote reform, really going to help 
revitalize our schools, and the children will say if you really want to 
help us go into the year 2000 and the new world order and be able to 
compete with a magnificent world-class education, then you cannot do 
that without having some considerations given to what it takes in order 
to meet those kinds of standards and what children have to have: 
laboratories, books, equipment, teachers who are teaching science who 
majored in science in college, or teachers who are teaching math who 
majored in math in college.
  A survey was done in New York City a few years ago by the Community 
Service Society which showed that in two-thirds of the city where the 
students were predominantly African-American and Latino, none of the 
teachers who were teaching science and math in junior high school had 
majored in science and math in college. How can those students take 
tests and meet world-class standards if they do not have teachers who 
know the subjects they are teaching?
  The emperor has no clothes on, 50 Governors have no clothes on, the 
President has no clothes on, and Members of Congress have no clothes on 
if they are going to go forward with educational reform and leave out 
this vital component.
  So we will talk more about that in greater detail later. But it is 
very important to let us get off to a good start in understanding that 
we cannot swindle; we should not promote a program which swindles the 
American children. The children of America deserve better. They need a 
truth in educational reform approach, and what this opportunity to 
learn standards does is to give us truth in educational reform. There 
can be no educational reform truly unless we have the opportunity to 
learn standards.
  Finally I would like to talk about the section of the bill which was 
under the jurisdiction formerly of the Subcommittee on Select Education 
and Civil Rights, the drug-free schools bill, which is a magnificent 
effort by our Congress, launched some years ago to meet a pressing 
need, and has had a mixed success. We know from our hearings that in 
some places they have done magnificently well in taking very minor 
amounts of money and turning those minor amounts of money into real 
programs that have made a difference in terms of changing the drug 
culture that was developing in our schools.
  The problem stretches from one end of America to the other. It is in 
the rural areas, the suburban areas, and the inner city areas. In all 
of these areas we have had various programs which are model programs, 
and we are going to continue those model programs.

                              {time}  1140

  The drug-free schools programs will continue, and the impetus, the 
initiative that started the drug-free schools will now be expanded into 
safe schools.
  The sixth goal that the Governors and the President came up with was 
that we should have safe schools and safe school environments, drug-
free schools and safe schools, and to meet that, the drug-free schools 
initiatives is being folded in under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act along with a new initiative called safe schools which 
will merge, and all of it will be designed to deal with the pressing 
problem in our society of youngsters who are being misled by the appeal 
that they are bombarded with by mass media, being misled by their peers 
who are yielding to a more glamorous and seemingly exciting lifestyle 
and we need to anchor in the schools some of the things related to 
values that have not been done in the homes.
  The Safe Schools Act, for example, is an act which provides an 
opportunity for schools to become as creative in the area of safe 
schools in general as they were with drug-free schools, so they can 
come forward with a plan of their own.
  None of the money can be used to buy hardware like metal detector 
machines, so the onus is on the school systems, the teachers, the 
parents all to come forward with ideas which deal with changing the 
mindsets of our youngsters. I founded a group called the Martin Luther 
King Commission in central Brooklyn, and that commission focuses on a 
number of initiatives to improve education. One of the actions is 
moving into the schools with a curriculum of nonviolence, a curriculum 
of conflict resolution, projects to promote conflict resolution. We 
have an essay contest every year, and we give away $10,000 in prizes 
for youngsters who write on the subject of how to resolve conflicts and 
various aspects of Martin Luther King's nonviolent approach to problem 
solving.
  There are many ideas like that out there, many approaches.
  The best of them should be allowed to flower, and then we should 
replicate them.
  This is a great bill we have here today. I urge all of my colleagues 
to pass the bill basically as it is.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], a member of the committee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, like all bills, there is not all bad in this bill, and 
there is not all good.
  First of all, this is my sophomore year, and this bill, I think, the 
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee] have worked harder on this bill to make it a 
bipartisan bill than they have in the past. I want to thank my 
colleagues for that. They have worked out a lot of compromises.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the Republican leader 
on the Education Committee, has worked with the majority party, and I 
think there are many good things in this bill.
  Title I funds for underprivileged children: It was targeted to the 
inner cities which took away from the amounts of dollars for the rural 
areas and also the suburbs. A poor child in those areas is just as 
important as a poor child in the cities, and my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] along with 
Dr. Payzant and Secretary Riley, worked out a compromise formula, and I 
believe in targeting, the moneys were not taken away from the rural 
areas. That was fantastic.
  The bipartisanship that went on was good in the bill.
  The impact aid, although underfunded, there was a compromise, and an 
amendment was removed which in my opinion made the bill a little more 
palatable.
  The Eisenhower plan, which allows for teacher training and upgrades 
so that our students get better training, those are all good. But quite 
often the Government gets involved to where the moneys we give to the 
schools are eaten up by the advanced paperwork. If you can imagine 
giving a school, say for example, $20,000 in an opportunity to learn 
program, and then you mandate so much paperwork and bureaucracy that 
those dollars are eaten up, we take away the original process and the 
reason why we are trying to give those funds.
  The opportunity to learn provisions in H.R. 6 are much more 
threatening to State and local education officials than the same 
provisions we saw in Goals 2000 language. These standards are not 
voluntary, and unfunded mandates, and all of us talk about unfunded 
mandates, and we will not support them.
  Opportunity to learn, as it exists, is unfunded and is a bad portion 
of this bill. I hope we can work out some compromise, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6 and would like 
to congratulate my subcommittee chairman, Dale Kildee, and his staff 
for their extraordinary work on this bill. And to our distinguished 
full committee chairman, Bill Ford, let me express my genuine 
admiration and respect for the legacy you will leave when you retire at 
the end of this year. You have produced a body of law that protects the 
rights and advances the well-being of millions of children, students, 
working and retired Americans.
  As one of the original authors of the ESEA, one of the greatest 
achievements of this body, Bill Ford must be extremely proud of the 
challenge and optimism that this bill represents. Along with Goals 
2000, this remarkable reauthorization will finally bring the Nation's 
education needs into full partnership in education reform at the State 
and local level. For too long efforts to reinvigorate our public 
schools have been pulled in so many contradictory directions that real 
progress has been impossible to measure.
  With Goals 2000 as the framework, and this reauthorization as the 
vehicle, we will by laying the foundation for real, sustainable 
systemic education reforms. The content and student performance 
standards, which are the primary organizing principle of both bills, 
are the core around which curriculum development, professional 
development and improved student assessment can be built. To meet local 
needs.
  H.R. 6 does not provide a single-source Federal solution to our 
Nation's education problems; it recognizes the incredible diversity of 
schools and school districts and provides encouragement and incentives 
for schools, administrators, teachers, students, and parents to work 
together to improve student achievement.
  Mr. Chairman, this reauthorization bill also incorporates two related 
changes in policy that, frankly, are long overdue. For the first time, 
we will distribute funds under the chapter I program directly to school 
districts, rather than counties. And those allocations will be based on 
poverty data that is updated every 2 years, rather than on numbers from 
the decennial census that quickly become outdated.
  Those seemingly small changes will help us drive chapter I dollars 
with more precision to those communities that are most in need. At the 
same time, they will help alleviate the profoundly disruptive effects 
of large shifts in funding between States after each census.
  Right now, we only get reliable poverty estimates below the national 
level once very 10 years, from the census. That data gets old quickly.
  During the 1980's, the number of poor school-age children increased 
by as much as 67 percent in some States, and decreased by as much as 34 
percent in others. Yet up until this past school year, we were 
distributing billions of chapter I dollars annually based on poverty 
data that reflected 1979 economic conditions. And then every 10 years, 
huge numerical shifts cause enormous funding dislocations at a single 
stroke.
  That is simply unwise and unsound policy.
  H.R. 6 provides for the distribution of chapter I funds based on 
poverty numbers updated every 2 years throughout the decade. Last 
November, the House passed legislation I sponsored to require the 
Census Bureau to produce poverty numbers every 2 years for States, 
counties, cities, and school districts.
  The availability of more timely measurements of poverty will help 
target Federal education dollars toward our most disadvantaged 
students.
  Concurrently, driving funds directly to school districts, instead of 
to larger and often more economically diverse counties, will ensure a 
greater share of resources for schools and communities with large 
numbers of poor children or high concentrations of poverty. Even 
communities that lose population overall may face increases in 
concentrations of impoverished children. This formula recognizes those 
needs.
  More timely data. More precise measurements for driving dollars to 
the local level. Those are but two of the many reasons why we should 
support the bill reported by the committee.
  I would like to thank all my committee colleagues who worked with me 
on the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program and 
Educational Technology Programs that are now part of title II of the 
bill. Both these provisions will make substantial investments in 
education reform. With national and State standards for the content of 
the curriculum taught in our schools rising to world class levels, the 
professional development of our teaching force has never been more 
critical. As Michael Kirst of Stanford University has said, ``education 
is won or lost in the classroom where teachers meet children''. The 
Eisenhower Professional Development Program will put resources and 
incentives in the hands that need them--our Nation's teachers.
  The Educational Technology Program, hand in hand with the Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program, would provide venture capital to 
State and local educational agencies. In partnership with the private 
sector it encourages and supports the development and use of 
educational technology to improve teaching and learning in America's 
classrooms. And it ties that effort to State and local curriculum 
reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I believe it 
represents the most fundamental change in our Nation's federally 
supported K-12 education programs since 1965, when this landmark law 
was created.
  It was an honor to have been a part of the work of this endeavor.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, let me first rise and commend the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], for his leadership in this effort and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], for his leadership.
  Let me say that some of our colleagues here just do not get it when 
it comes to education. I rise in support of many of the provisions in 
this particular legislation primarily because I guess I am one of the 
few Members of Congress who was not an attorney before coming here. I 
am a classroom teacher. I spent 7 years in some of the most depressed 
communities in Pennsylvania, not only teaching in the classroom but 
running for 3 years a Chapter I Program, then called title I. I also 
worked on the ESEA title III program back when it was first 
established.
  I applaud the committee's action which they have taken in regard to 
chapter I, now title I. It is a great program. It works. Educationally 
and economically deprived kids are being helped. It is a proper role 
for the Federal Government. We should support it, and I do support it.
  We should support chapter II. It is a good program. If you listen to 
your local school boards and teachers, they will tell you the one 
positive thing they have coming from Washington is the ability to buy 
new technology, to improve and build innovations; and chapter II does 
that. This committee in this legislation has done a great job.
  But, you know, Mr. Chairman, as I listen to people around the country 
and look at property taxes in Pennsylvania, we do not get it down here, 
because the biggest problem with local education--and I say this as a 
former vice president of my education association--is not that we need 
more money, it is that we need less mandates.
  We have got to understand in America the bottom-line message coming 
from school boards and coming from teachers is, ``Don't mandate 
something on us unless you are willing to pay for it.''
  Mr. Chairman, I will at the proper time include in the Record a 
letter to me from the mayor of Philadelphia, Edward Rendell, who said 
in 1960 there were two mandates on State and local government, in 1990, 
61--a 3,000 percent increase.
  The Governors' Association, the Mayors Association estimate $54 
billion of costs we pass on to the local schools because we mandate 
everything from asbestos removal to underground storage tanks, to 
special education, which I support but which we do not fund fully. It 
has got to stop.
  The one onerous provision of this legislation that has got to be 
dealt with is the opportunity to learn standards. Make no mistake about 
it, we cannot advocate something unless we are willing to pay for it. 
If you are not willing to put your vote up to pay for a program, do not 
tell State and local governments that they have to do it, because all 
you do is compound the problem. You cause outrageous frustration with 
local school boards, you have the teachers blamed for the increased 
costs of education, when the bulk of the problem lies right here in 
this Chamber.
  We are the cause for the excess costs of public education in America. 
We still do not get it. Some of us still want to think that central 
planning and central control is the way to improve and control the 
public schools of this country. That is not what we are hearing across 
America, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation because it 
does many good things, but to support the amendment to remove the 
opportunity to learn standards. That is not what our system is about, 
that is not what our people want, and that is not what our educational 
leaders want.


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                               Philadelphia, PA, October 26, 1993.
     Hon. Curt Weldon,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Curt. As you know, unfunded federal mandates are 
     placing an increasingly unfair burden on state and local 
     governments. The U.S. Advisory Commission on 
     Intergovernmental Relations reports that federal laws 
     regulating state and local governments increased from 2 in 
     1960 to 14 by 1990, 36 by 1980 and 61 by 1990--a 3000% 
     increase. By being forced to comply with such mandates, state 
     and local officials must reprioritize budget decisions and, 
     as a consequence, many valuable programs suffer from lack of 
     funding. We are often forced to reduce the number of police 
     and firefighters that protect our city as well as funding for 
     sanitation, recreation, parks, libraries and health care in 
     order to pay for the cost of these unfunded mandates. I am 
     enclosing background materials that more fully detail the 
     magnitude of the problem.
       Fortunately however, legislation has been introduced that 
     offers a possible solution to this problem: Senator 
     Kempthorne's Community Regulatory Relief Act--S. 993 
     (attached). This bill requires Congress to assume all costs 
     for any mandate it wishes to impose on state and local 
     governments.
       I urge you to do everything you can to ensure that this 
     bill is enacted. Your support of this important piece of 
     legislation will enable elected officials nationwide to 
     regain control of significant portions of their own budgets 
     and to better respond to the needs of their communities. If 
     you need any additional information regarding federal 
     mandates, please contact Mark Gaige of my staff at (215) 686-
     2060.
           Sincerely,
                                                Edward G. Rendell,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not able to support H.R. 6 at this time, but I am 
hopeful that things can be worked out so that it is legislation that I 
can support. We will see what happens.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the current draft of H.R. 6. 
First of all, I would like to express my support for Congressman 
Armey's efforts to correct a serious flaw in the bill, thereby 
protecting home schoolers from Federal regulation. I have received 
hundreds of calls from parents who have opted to teach their children 
at home, because of concerns they have regarding the quality of public 
schools or subject matter taught at public schools. The Federal 
Government has no basis for regulating these parent-educators and 
schools. Requiring that home schoolers be certified in every subject 
that they teach would effectively eliminate the ability of parents to 
teach their students at home.
  With regard to H.R. 6 as a whole, our staffs have worked in a 
bipartisan fashion throughout the last several months to craft 
legislation to provide continued Federal aid to elementary and 
secondary schools, and assist States and localities with their efforts 
to reform their schools. The resulting reauthorization proposal enjoyed 
the support of the vast majority of our committee's membership.
  I recently met with a group of educators in my district regarding 
this proposal, and the Goals 2000 legislation. Many stressed that 
failed reforms at the local level were usually the result of a lack of 
broad-based community support behind the reform efforts. Unfortunately, 
we have experienced the same problem at the Federal level. Despite the 
existence of broadly supported national education goals since 1989, we 
have been unable to agree on consensus legislation to codify these 
goals and help the localities to meet them. The Nation's children have 
suffered from our inability to forge a consensus on this important 
issue. With this in mind, I was extremely pleased that our committee 
was working in a bipartisan fashion on this important legislation.
  Regrettably, this bipartisanship broke down during the committee 
markup of H.R. 6. Unfortunately, as the bill moved through the 
committee process, the proposal was loaded down with a teacher 
certification requirement which could apply to home schools, increased 
paperwork requirements, Federal mandates, $1.1 billion in new programs 
which will compete with existing and widely supported programs for 
scarce Federal dollars.
  Like Goals 2000, the most controversial element of the proposal is 
the opportunity to learn [OTL] standards added by the Owens amendment 
during committee consideration. The philosophy behind OTL standards is 
that if a school does not provide resources deemed necessary by the 
Federal Government and the State, we cannot expect children to be able 
to learn. At President Bush's 1989 Education Summit with the 
Governors--including then-Governors Bill Clinton and Richard Riley--all 
participants agreed that the Nation's schools needed better results, 
not just more money. National content standards--what we expect 
students to know--would be set at world-class levels, and assessments 
would be used to determine whether students were mastering the 
curriculum. Teachers and principals would be given the necessary 
flexibility to find new ways of making their schools work, but would be 
held accountable for increased student achievement. Opportunity to 
learn standards represent would abandon this emphasis on results to 
emphasize school inputs.

  As a result of the OTL standards, States would be required to develop 
school delivery standards addressing eight specific areas, including 
the quality and availability of curriculum; the access of teachers, 
principals, and administrators to professional development programs; 
the quality of school buildings; and any other factors which a State 
decides upon.
  These standards are not voluntary. State education agencies will be 
required to develop them, and if a State does not, the Secretary of 
Education can withhold all of the State's chapter 1 allocation. Each 
State, local education agency, and school will have to review all of 
their policies, curricula, and instructional practices to ensure they 
are providing an opportunity to learn. In effect, the Federal 
Government will mandate that schools provide up-to-date textbooks, new 
computers, laboratory equipment, teacher training programs, building 
repairs and construction, and new gender equity programs without 
providing any funding for these purposes. This is precisely the type of 
unfunded mandate which our Governors and mayors have rebelled against. 
As Roy Romer, Colorado's Democrat Governor recently argued, ``You don't 
want to get into the business of defining how many textbooks we have, 
and we don't want to get into the business of filing out forms.''
  Furthermore, these standards will result in a flood of lawsuits 
against States, local education agencies, and schools. An Alabama State 
court recently ruled that the K-12 State school system is 
unconstitutional because it does not provide students with an adequate 
education. Virtually all State constitutions require that States 
provide students with an adequate public education. If we provide an 
operational definition of what constitutes an adequate education, we 
invite parents and interest groups to sue schools which fail to meet 
the required standard. Likely to be lost in the effort to meet these 
opportunity to learn standards is how to help children with what they 
need to know to be productive citizens and workers.
  For too many years, we have attempted to measure the quality of our 
schools by measuring inputs such as the credentials of school 
personnel, teacher-student ratios, and the amount of money spent per 
pupil. Despite these standards already utilized, few would argue that 
our schools are doing the job to prepare students for success in an 
increasingly competitive world. In fact, the American Legislative 
Exchange Council [ALEC] and Empower America recently released a report, 
``Report Card on American Education 1993,'' which reveals that despite 
a 62-percent increase--in constant 1992 dollars--in education funding 
over the last 20 years, there has been no significant improvement in 
student performance. In addition, the report found no statistical 
correlation between per-pupil expenditure and student achievement. In 
fact, Utah which had the lowest average per-pupil expenditure of any 
State, also had the fourth highest SAT scores and ranked eighth among 
States in the National Assessment on Education Progress.
  Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the opportunity to learn issue, and 
other problems in the bill such as its potential for increasing 
regulation on private, parochial, and home schools can be corrected 
through amendments. Regrettably, if this is not the case, I will be 
forced to vote against H.R. 6.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of the committee.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6 cannot pass the House in its current form. 
Somewhere along the line the bill lost track of our tradition of 
allowing States, local school boards and families to develop education 
policy and, instead embarked on a mission to intrude and mandate 
educational policies on a national level.
  The 1994 legislative agenda is certainly the most aggressive since 
the Great Society days of the 1960's or the New Deal days of the 
1930's. With health care reform, welfare reform, and a major crime 
bill, we will be busy. The major debate on these issues focuses on the 
role of the Federal Government versus the local and State governments. 
The role of the Federal Government was greatly expanded in the Great 
Society days of Lyndon Johnson and today we are looking at a bill that 
makes a giant Lyndon Johnson leap to increase the role of the Federal 
Government in elementary and secondary education.
  Like the other members of the committee committed to the ability of 
local school boards to develop appropriate education policy, I voted 
against reporting this bill to the floor. The bill has too many 
mandates that are both excessive and intrusive.
  The bill is too expensive. The programs added by the leadership total 
$1.1 billion in additional spending above and beyond the request made 
by the President.
  Not only does the bill add $1.1 billion in new programs, it also 
reinstates $62 million of programs targeted for elimination by the 
President, who called many of the programs worthy of termination or 
unneeded.
  I do not see why we are authorizing $13 million for the education of 
native Hawaiians when the President said native Hawaiians can receive 
sufficient funds under such formula grant programs as Title I, Even 
Start, and Special Education. Did we forget our intent to focus scarce 
Federal dollars on broad national education concerns, rather than on 
specific constituencies?
  This bill is too prescriptive and restrictive. Mandating teacher 
certification is an infringement on the traditional rights of State and 
local educating agencies.
  The Federal Government is entering the jurisdiction of local and 
State educational concerns, for the first time, by mandating teacher 
certification for full-time teachers. For the Federal Government to 
tell local schools who they can hire is a scary thought.
  The bill dictates how to make education work for all States in its 
opportunities to learn mandate. It is an unfunded mandate. This 
provision requires schools to set opportunity to learn standards and 
issue annual reports on everything from how many textbooks the school 
has, to classroom size, to what kind of computers the school can buy, 
but provides no funds to do so. Therefore, schools will be forced to 
implement this mandate with chapter I funds, neglecting economically 
disadvantaged children in favor of fulfilling a new Federal mandate.
  I do not believe that President Clinton or Secretary Riley, both 
former Governors, really want this expanded role for the Federal 
Government. It wasn't the bill they brought to us last year.
  Now, let us either clean this bill up or reject it and start over. 
Think about it, we provide only 5 percent of the funds to local 
educating agencies and we're mandating 100 percent of their activities.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6 and would begin my 
comments by heaping accolades on the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee] and his staff and the entire staff of the Committee on 
Education and Labor for their hard work and diligence.
  I would also like to commend the gentleman from Michigan [Chairman 
Ford]. I think his legacy is served by this legislation and by 
legislation like direct loans and Goals 2000.
   Mr. Chairman, last year the House Education and Labor Committee 
began the task of reexamining the Federal Government's programs to 
assist elementary and secondary schools in our Nation. The committee 13 
months ago began crafting a comprehensive reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that provides local 
education agencies with more freedom in how they use Federal education 
dollars. In exchange for this flexibility, we will now demand greater 
educational achievements in our Nation's schools.
  We are not saying unfunded mandates, we are not requiring States to 
do all kinds of new things; we are challenging our schools and our 
teachers, going into this new century, to meet some higher standards.
  I think this reflects Abraham Lincoln's adage, ``As the times are 
new, we must think anew and act anew.''
  One of the major components of this bill is the Title I Program which 
provides compensatory education to educationally disadvantaged 
students. I believe that the committee crafted a title I formula which 
will effectively target limited Federal resources.
  Some may argue that this formula does little to concentrate title I 
dollars to high poverty areas. I believe that the bill does contain 
this targeting, but it does not do so at the expense of other less poor 
but still needy communities.
  I do not think that the Title I Program needs to have winners and 
losers. I think that all students, whether they live in Chicago, 
Washington, DC, South Bend, IN, should be given the educational 
resources they need to excel.

                              {time}  1200

  I believe that H.R. 6 goes a long way toward achieving that goal, Mr. 
Chairman, and I would also like to applaud the administration and 
President Clinton, particularly Secretary of Education Riley. Mr. Riley 
has done great work on getting additional moneys into this continuing 
account: 659 million additional dollars will go into this, and we need 
to continue to concentrate our precious resources on children at risk.
  I am also pleased that H.R. 6 places a high priority on professional 
development. We cannot get our teachers the skills that they need and 
then say to them in Goals 2000, ``We need better math and science 
scores; we need safe, drug-free schools,'' without investing in our 
teachers.
  I do, however, have serious reservations about the chapter 2 program 
in the bill. The initial reauthorization proposal would have applied 
existing chapter 2 resources to the Eisenhower Professional Development 
Program. I continue to believe that we need to focus our resources on 
professional development and not on a duplicative program which studies 
indicate does little to foster local school reform.
  I do think that we need to have some clarifying language, Mr. 
Chairman, on this bill not affecting the rights and privileges of 
people to home school their children and that States and local 
governments should address that problem. That is not what the Federal 
Government should be doing in this bill, and I think the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ford] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] will 
offer language later on reassuring that parents in this country can 
give home schoolers the right to continue that by saying that the State 
and the local governments should act on that and that nothing in this 
bill threatens that opportunity for parents to take that action.
  The reauthorization process was guided by one principle: the need to 
enable all students to reach high standards. I believe that H.R. 6 will 
help students and teachers accomplish this goal. Most important, the 
bill will provide a solid foundation for our Nation's education system 
to excel into the next century.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] who has been very active in the formula fight.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6, Improving America's Schools Act, 
reauthorizes and amends most of the Federal Government's programs of 
aid for elementary and secondary education. This legislation will 
affect virtually every public school in the country and has the 
potential to be a powerful tool for education reform. The Committee on 
Education and Labor has spent more than a year in considering this 
legislation and, for the most part, the process has been bipartisan.
  I am pleased that the title I funding formula authored by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] and myself, and passed in 
committee by a vote of 40 to 2 is included in this legislation. I 
believe this formula is fair and equitable to all regions of the 
country. This formula ensures that disadvantaged children, in both 
urban and rural areas, will continue to receive the Federal assistance 
they need.
  The Kildee-Petri consensus formula consists of two parts. The first 
part, for money up to the fiscal year 1994 level is based on current 
law. However, targeting is increased by calculating these grants at the 
local education agency level rather than by county as is currently the 
case. In addition, the poverty estimates used for the calculation of 
these grants will be updated biennially, as opposed to decennially as 
is currently the case. This will help reduce the drastic funding shifts 
which have occurred in this program following each census.
  The second part of the formula, used to distribute new appropriations 
over and above the fiscal year 1994 level, will be calculated using a 
weighted pupil factor based on the percentage of families living in 
poverty in the local educational agency's area. All disadvantaged 
children will get some help from the new title I money, but those 
living in areas with high concentrations of poverty will get slightly 
more. These grants will also be calculated at the LEA level, and 
poverty estimates will be updated every 2 years.
  This formula represents a true compromise. And, in the spirit of a 
true compromise everybody wins, but no one wins completely.
  Another provision which I support is the inclusion of charter schools 
language. The committee adopted an amendment that would authorize the 
Secretary of Education to make grants for the planning and startup of 
charter schools. Charter schools are public schools in which teachers 
and principals are empowered to try innovative new methods to better 
meet the needs of students. In exchange for the waiver of some statutes 
and regulations which often stifle public education, charter school 
administrators agree to ensure that their students achieve high 
standards.
  Unfortunately, there are still provisions in this legislation which 
cause me great concern. I firmly believe that improvement of our 
education system must come form the local level. The Federal role in 
education should never be to dictate reform from Washington, Rather, it 
should be to help give our communities the tools they need to best 
serve their students based on their own firsthand knowledge.
  With this in mind, I am particularly concerned with a provision in 
the bill which requires teacher certification of all teachers in any 
State receiving title II funds. It is not the role of the Federal 
Government to dictate to States whether or how they certify teachers. 
In addition, there is great concern that this provision could require 
the certification of those who teach in private schools or choose to 
school their children at home. Whatever one's view of home schooling, 
it is a matter which has traditionally been left to the States and we 
should not be trying to effectively outlaw it at the Federal level by 
stealth. I am pleased to note that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ford] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] will both be offering 
amendments to fix this problem. I will certainly support such a fix and 
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I am also concerned that language in the bill requiring the 
development of very specific ``opportunity to learn standards'' may 
create a new, unfunded Federal mandate on States, local education 
agencies, and schools, and at a minimum has the potential to generate a 
tremendous amount of needless redtape and litigation. Of greater 
concern is the possibility that these federally mandated standards 
could erode the traditional State and local roles in curricula 
development, teacher training, and facility construction and 
maintenance. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] will be offering 
a compromise amendment to remove the burden which these standards would 
otherwise impose on State and local governments. I will be supporting 
this amendment, and again, I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. Chairman, when the committee began this process over a year ago, 
it set out to provide State and local education agencies with the tools 
they need to help children learn to higher standards. To a large 
extent, H.R. 6 accomplishes this. I do remain concerned over certain 
provisions in the bill. However, I am hopeful that many of these 
problems can be worked out as we proceed.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] for his great work on the formula. We generally 
have had formula fights, and with his input we put together the Petri-
Kildee formula which we worked out with Secretary Riley.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Improving 
America's Schools Act as reported out of the House Education and Labor 
Committee, and in opposition to any weakening amendments or 
substitutes.
  H.R. 6 is the product of over a year's worth of intensive review by 
the Education and Labor Committee on the Nation's existing educational 
system. I applaud Chairman Kildee, Chairman Ford, and my fellow 
committee members, on both aisles, for their commitment in crafting a 
fair, innovative, and comprehensive education bill. The legislation 
represents a systematic approach to educational reform, follows the 
framework set forth in Goals 2000, and includes needed program 
improvement changes.
  H.R. 6 reauthorizes and restructures most Federal elementary and 
secondary education programs in an effort to assist States and school 
districts in their school reform efforts. The legislation permits 
increased flexibility on the State and local levels with improved 
accountability requirements if expected achievements are not met. In 
addition, H.R. 6 does not reauthorize 12 existing programs which have 
been proven to be outdated or ineffective. Instead, H.R. 6 includes 
new, innovative, and systematic education reform strategies and 
programs.

  As everyone knows by now, H.R. 6 reformulates the title I funding 
formula and increases local and State flexibility. However, H.R. 6 also 
contains several lesser known but equally important provisions, 
including the Technology Education Assistance Act, the Library Media 
Program, the School Facilities Improvement Act, the Civic Education and 
Ellender Fellowship programs, and an Urban/Rural Education initiative.
  In addition, H.R. 6 contains the Community Arts Partnership Act, 
which I introduced in August of this year. Since that time, this 
legislation has gained the support of over 30 House Members and has 
been endorsed by over 100 arts and education organizations.
  The reasoning behind this initiative is simple. The arts have 
recently been included in the national education goals. This is 
certainly appropriate since research has shown that the arts play an 
invaluable role in educating our children. The arts have been shown to 
aid in the development of higher-order thinking skills; an increase in 
multicultural understanding; an enhanced learning environment; improved 
self-esteem and positive emotional responses to learning; and 
engagement of a variety of learning styles. In addition, recent budget 
constraints have placed tremendous burden on local and State agencies, 
and as a result, school arts programs are often the first to be cut or 
eliminated. Many States, including New York, now have a mandated arts 
curriculum. However, with no resources, it is often totally ignored.

  In summary, the Community Arts Partnership Act authorizes the 
Secretary to award demonstration grants to Title I eligible LEA's to 
work in partnership with local cultural organizations and institutions 
of higher learning to improve the educational performance of at-risk 
children and youth by providing comprehensive and coordinated 
educational and cultural services. The provision is designed to provide 
seed money to leverage resources from community cultural institutions 
for the benefit of the LEA's. This program is a cost-effective, and 
inventive method to facilitate innovative education strategies at the 
local level.
  In conclusion, H.R. 6 in its current form will clearly serve as an 
important vehicle in redirecting the Federal Government's role in 
education. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6 in its entirety, 
opposing any weakening amendments.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for 
being so kind as to give me some time on this issue.
  Let me ask my friends, what is the most important lesson that the 
world has learned in the last 20 years? I think that lesson is that big 
government does not work, and yet this bill, H.R. 6, is an exercise in 
big government. It is an exercise in unfunded mandates and it is an 
exercise in micromanagement.
  I think that if we look at all the students that are enumerated and 
manifested in this bill and we look at what has gone before, we can 
only come to the conclusion that now a great deal of the taxpayers' 
money will be spent in a bureaucracy to maintain those mandates and 
those standards rather than being spent in that critical time between 
teachers and students.
  Mr. Chairman, let me speak for just 1 minute about what I consider to 
be one of the most critical aspects and most damaging aspects of this 
bill. A reasonable reading of this bill shows, I think, that there is a 
threat to home schooling.
  Let me talk for just a minute about mothers and fathers. Mothers and 
fathers, all experts agree, are critical to the education of our young 
people. They are critical to the success of our society, and they are 
critical to bringing down crime rates, bringing down irresponsible 
behavior, and rebuilding American society. So why is it that the 
education bill that we have put together for work on the House floor 
today is a bill that divides American families and takes American 
mothers and fathers who choose to home-school away from their children?
  There are a lot of things that mothers and fathers cannot provide to 
their children. A lot of moms and dads in this country cannot guarantee 
a large sum of money to their children, they cannot guarantee them 
automobiles, and maybe some of them cannot guarantee good clothes. 
Maybe some of them cannot guarantee that they can afford a college 
education, but what many of them give to their children is themselves, 
and they give themselves to their children in home schooling. They 
spend a lot of hours in home schooling, preparing themselves. They 
sacrifice greatly, because they are paying taxes to support the public 
schools, and yet, because they consider their children to be the real 
treasures of their lives, they undertake to sacrifice and they home-
schools their kids.
  I respect those moms and dads, and I think it is time for this 
Congress to respect those moms and dads.
  There is no President of the United States, there is no Congressman, 
there is no school administrator, and there is no teacher who is as 
important to the education of a young person as his or her own parents, 
and for that reason alone, we should vote down H.R. 6.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me note that on the alleged unfunded mandate, the 
opportunity-to-learn standards, we have reached a compromise so that it 
will not be an unfunded mandate.
  I also wish to note that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] and I 
will be offering an amendment that will make it abundantly clear that 
in no way does this legislation affect home schooling. It does not 
affect it as written, but when people have fears that it might be 
affected, I think we should respond to that, and we will respond to 
that. But it was never the intention of the legislation to affect home 
schools, and we will be offering an amendment to make sure that is 
abundantly clear.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
appreciate his statement that this language is going to be clarified, 
because as I read the language and the terms, ``elementary,'' 
``residential school,'' and ``nonprofit,'' with all those terms in the 
context in which they were placed, I think they raise legitimate fears 
with parents who are concerned that this will affect home schooling.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, whatever the case may be, I do not read it 
that way and the attorneys do not read it that way, but we will 
nevertheless respond to those terms with very clear language.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], for yielding this time to me. I 
thank the gentleman who is the chairman of the subcommittee, and also 
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ford], and the ranking minority member, my good friend, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], who have done such an outstanding job 
with this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act reauthorization. This important piece of 
legislation, along with the Goals 2000 bill, links Federal education 
aid to high standards for achievement, to accountability, and to 
consequences for poor performance. Experience has shown that without 
that kind of framework, all the money in the world won't improve our 
troubled education system.
  Of course, adequate resources are a crucial piece of school reform. 
Dilapidated school buildings, inadequate teacher salaries, and outdated 
textbooks are all barriers to student achievement. We should spend more 
Federal money on education than we do, which is one feature of H.R. 6.
  But meeting our national education goals will take more than money. 
It requires Federal policies that require performance and hold States, 
school districts, and schools accountable for results.
  Federal education programs were designed to augment State and local 
investments, and encourage certain education priorities at the State 
and local level. Federal funds were never intended to do it all. In 
fact, the $12.4 billion H.R. 6 authorizes for the next fiscal year 
isn't even 5 percent of the $279.4 billion spent on elementary and 
secondary education in this country last year.
  H.R. 6 recognizes, particularly with some of the ways in which it 
changes current law in titles 1 and 2, that systemic school reform must 
be an important goal of Federal education aid at this moment in time. 
Our investment is needed to leverage broad and basic change: Better 
trained teachers, more challenging and effective curricula, 
coordinated--often school-based--health and social services, safer 
school environments.
  Secretary Riley could not have stated the goal better than he did in 
his speech at Georgetown last week: School improvement is a critical 
part of getting America to ``connect up again with our children.'' In 
fact, every piece of legislation we work on in the fields of education, 
health care, and social services must be part of what Secretary Riley 
calls ``A campaign for the future of our children.'' Otherwise, we are 
failing to meet the greatest challenge our Nation faces today--namely 
to reestablish the connection between parents and children, and between 
communities and schools. And, indeed, we at the Federal level must 
connect our education policies with the urgent needs of schools 
throughout this country.
  Obviously, the Federal Government couldn't possibly implement these 
changes--Congress is not the great school board in the sky. But it is 
absolutely within our power to encourage and expect school improvement. 
H.R. 6 is a step in the right direction, but I hope that by the time 
this bill is signed into law and by the time this Congress adjourns we 
will have gone even further.

  We need to do an even better job of marshalling our resources across 
programmatic lines and across Federal departmental lines. The 
coordinated services section of H.R. 6 is a start. So is the expanded 
schoolwide option in title 1, which I strongly believe should be opened 
up even further.
  But experience around the country indicates there is further untapped 
potential in even broader State and local flexibility in Federal 
funding for education, social services, and health care.
  Secretary Riley in his speech last week discussed what I believe 
could be the basis for an incredibly important new institution in 
American education and in American life: Neighborhood-based, early 
childhood family centers. We have seen this work in San Antonio; the 
Regina school project in Prince Georges County is another model for 
delivering school-based comprehensive family services.
  Why this approach now? Because we know definitively that barriers to 
student achievement come in many forms: Parents who need literacy and 
job skills, youngsters who need medical care, the dearth of good child 
development programs for those aged 0 to 3.
  Improving educational achievement in this country requires that kind 
of broad, interdisciplinary vision--at a time when a lot of schools are 
having trouble with the basics, which need our urgent attention too. 
For us as policymakers, the task before us demands a fundamental 
reassessment of what drives school change toward educational 
excellence. Flexibility must be coupled with high-performance standards 
and tough consequences for poor performance. I will be offering an 
amendment on this when we consider title 1. Old turf battles and narrow 
political interests must be put aside.
  The task is gargantuan, but so are the stakes--not only for the 
children in each of our districts, but for the Nation as a whole. 
Educational excellence will determine whether we can compete in the 
world economy, whether we can sustain a reasonable standard of living 
in this country, whether our democracy can flourish in a climate of 
reasoned discourse, and whether each individual American can have 
access to the myriad pleasures only learning affords.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the newest member on the 
Committee on Education and Labor, and the ex-Governor of Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time to me, and I congratulate him for his extraordinary work on this, 
as well as Chairman Ford and Chairman Kildee, all of whom I think have 
done a spectacular job.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Goodling's hope that in the 
process of amending this bill over the next week, we can enact a 
bipartisan bill that benefits--not burdens--our schools and students.
  As a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, I want to 
commend the hard work of my colleagues on the committee and all the 
staff members. Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act provides a vital opportunity to improve worthwhile 
programs for poor and disadvantaged children throughout this country. 
And while H.R. 6 contains many improvements--there are clearly several 
problems with the bill before us that I believe must be corrected so 
that Congress does not impose the heavy hand of the Federal Government 
upon our States and local schools.
  Phones in congressional offices across the country have been ringing 
off the hook over the mandatory teacher certification provision in H.R. 
6, and how it affects home, private, and religious schools. In my 
Delaware offices alone, as of 11:30 this morning, we have received 
1,966 phone calls from individuals expressing their opposition and 
anger with the Federal Government telling States how teachers must be 
certified in subjects they teach.
  I, too, am extremely concerned about schools or institutions that do 
not receive funds from this act falling victim to its many mandates. I 
supported my colleague, Mr. Armey, in the Education and Labor Committee 
with his amendment to protect our home and private schools that do not 
receive funds under H.R. 6 from this bill's demands. Unfortunately, the 
amendment failed on a party-line vote.
  While I understand the chairman of this committee is attempting to 
correct this problem--there is a very important reason why I urge my 
colleagues to support the Armey amendment, rather than the other home-
school amendment. The chairman's amendment is an incomplete solution 
because it does not provide any protection to private schools. More 
importantly, it doesn't even protect all home schools, because 17 
States, including my State of Delaware, refer to home schools as 
private schools.
  On the other hand, the Armey amendment will solve the problem 
entirely.
  Furthermore, teacher certification is a State prerogative. The 
Federal Government has no business telling States to decide who is or 
who is not a certified teacher.
  We also need to address the problem of the opportunity-to-learn 
standards inserted into H.R. 6. What they should be called is ``No 
opportunity-to-receive funds.'' Mr. Chairman, the language that my 
Democratic colleagues agreed to in committee would require a school to 
set standards and issue reports on everything from what books it 
purchased--to the size of a classroom in order to receive funds under 
this act. Further, it fails to provide a school with the funds to 
comply with the demands of doing the paperwork alone.
  Education has always been a State and local function. However, the 
above provisions would shift that role dramatically. And I do not 
believe it is in the best interest of our students, teachers, and 
parents to give the Federal Government more control over what goes on 
in classrooms across this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill presents an opportunity to improve elementary 
and secondary education. However, as I have outlined above, I have some 
grave concerns that I hope will be addressed through amendments we vote 
on today and next week. In the end, I hope we can enact a bipartisan 
measure that truly helps our schools improve what and how our children 
are taught--without imposing costly, burdensome, and meddling mandates 
upon our schools.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, 82 percent of those that are incarcerated 
in our prisons today are high school dropouts. That is why I 
congratulate Secretary Riley, Secretary of Education, so much, as well 
as Chairman Ford and Chairman Kildee, as well as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Goodling, and many others, for constructing H.R. 6.
  I am a former college president. I have been on the front lines when 
it comes to education and the needs and the concerns that we have to 
improve quality education in America today.
  I do believe strongly that we are going to have to make some 
adjustments in H.R. 6. I am very pleased with what has already been 
said, because my phone has been ringing off the wall when it comes to 
home schoolers.
  This provision, this language needs to be very clear concerning home 
schoolers. In Tennessee we have thousands of parents who believe the 
best education their children can have is to receive an education at 
home, and they should have that right, because parents know what is 
best for their children.
  The other issue in this legislation that has me concerned is the 
Federal Government's new involvement in what we teach in public 
schools. We are treading in dangerous water any time Congress enacts 
legislation expanding the powers of the Federal Government.
  It is concerning me greatly and many others that the Federal 
Government is moving in an area which they should not move. I believe 
in neighborhood schools. I believe in community schools. I think it is 
tragic that we have gotten so far away from that. That offers safety to 
our school children and to our children that need safety more than 
anything else. How can they learn anything if they are concerned about 
what is going to happen to them next.
  With those adjustments, support H.R. 6.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor-
Health and Human Services-Education of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I support H.R. 6. This is not a perfect bill, and we are going to 
vote later today and next week to fix some of the problems, 
particularly in the provisions regarding home schooling. But both of 
the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Pennsylvania have 
brought out a bill that on the whole deserves our support.
  Those of us concerned about federally impacted schools have worked 
for years on this reauthorization. The chairmen and ranking member have 
worked with us diligently, and we appreciate their help. I want to 
thank two staff in particular--Lynn Selmser and Jeff McFarland who 
spent more time working on Impact Aid than could reasonably have been 
expected.
  H.R. 6, as modified by the chairman's amendment, creates an Impact 
Aid Program that focuses for the first time on need and ensures that 
heavily impacted school districts will be treated fairly.
  This bill deserves our support, and I encourage Members to vote for 
H.R. 6.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6 reauthorizes the Impact Aid Program. It creates 
a new, need-based formula which allocates funding based on the relative 
impact of Federal activities on each district. At the same time, while 
shifting funding to those schools districts most in need, the new 
formula recognizes that the program continues to be underfunded. It 
therefore provides a hold-harmless provision which ensures that school 
districts which will experience funding decreases under the new formula 
will have 3 years to adjust the new system. Under this provision, 
schools will be guaranteed at least 90 percent of their current-year 
allocation in the first year under the new formula, 80 percent in the 
second year, and 70 percent in the third year. This provision will 
provide a smoother transition to the new system for all schools.
  Most importantly for the people of my district, H.R. 6 includes a 
provision which I helped to work out with the subcommittee chairmen and 
ranking member, the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, 
the Military Impacted Schools Association, other interested Members of 
Congress, and the administration. This provision creates a new category 
of Additional Assistance for Heavily Impacted Local Educational 
Agencies. Under this provision, heavily impacted schools with heavy 
impact and high local tax effort, like North Chicago District No. 187 
in my congressional district, will qualify for additional assistance to 
help reduce the local subsidy currently provided to federally connected 
children due to underfunding of the Impact Aid Program.
  I am particularly encouraged by the adoption by the committee of this 
provision because, if enacted, it will help alleviate the situation 
faced earlier this year by District No. 187 when it was forced to 
petition for dissolution. While it was able to avoid a complete school 
shutdown, a teachers strike subsequently closed the schools for over 40 
days. The new assistance we are about to approve today will literally 
mean having a public school to attend for over 4,000 students in north 
Chicago.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to address more fully the issue of teacher 
certification for home schoolers and private schools. I am 
unequivocally opposed to any Federal involvement in this issue. Teacher 
certification for private and home schools is an issue that States and 
communities have dealt with for our entire history as a nation. There 
is no reason for the Federal Government to involve itself in any way in 
this matter, and I will vote for any and all amendments that will 
ensure this result.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, in 1968, there were 20,000 blind 
students in our secondary and elementary schools, 40 percent of those 
blind students could read Braille, 45 percent could read large print, 
large type; 4 percent could read both.
  It is now 1994. There are 50,000 blind students in our elementary and 
secondary schools. Only 9 percent can read Braille. Only 27 percent can 
read large type. And 40 percent of all of our blind students cannot 
read at all.
  There are 40,000 more blind children today in school, 30 percent can 
read, 70 percent cannot, versus 95 percent that could read in 1968.
  I have an amendment today I am hoping the committee will support. It 
does several things. It costs no money, but it extends the program that 
has been established in now 21 States.
  The first section calls for an individual assessment of a blind 
student's capabilities to read and provides an individualized program.
  The second section established teacher competency standards and 
training, specialized training for those teachers. And finally, the 
third section facilitates the production of Braille and digital text 
and materials at essentially no cost for our blind students.
  Let me say this, this is a good bill. But it overlooks our blind 
students, and I am hoping that the committee finds favor with my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to our friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, during House consideration of H.R. 6, 
many views will be expressed regarding many specific provisions 
contained in this voluminous legislation.
  However, this Member believes there is a very fundamental issue that 
must be discussed during this debate. Unfortunately, under this 
legislation the Federal Government would be moved dramatically into 
areas where it does not belong. For example, the teacher certification 
requirements added to the bill during committee markup unfortunately 
break new ground in Federal involvement in education. Additionally, the 
mandatory opportunity-to-learn standards constitute yet another 
constitutionally inappropriate and unfunded Federal mandate on States 
and local school districts. Any regulation of home schooling is also 
outside the constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government.

  If Congress enacts this legislation in its current form it would be 
unsurping the role that the U.S. Constitution clearly gives to the 
States. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues that under the 
determination set out by article X of the U.S. Constitution, the 
responsibility to provide and regulate education is left to the States; 
there is no primary Federal role in public education specified by the 
U.S. Constitution, in spite of the views of activists inside and 
outside of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, again, this Member urges his colleagues to reject the 
usurpation of the education responsibilities of the States and their 
school districts that is now a part of H.R. 6. This enlargement of the 
Federal role in certification and regulation of education is in direct 
contradiction to our federal system of government as prescribed by the 
U.S. Constitution.
  May I say to my colleagues, we have had a tremendous outpouring of 
concern about this issue. It is unfortunate, I think, that Members of 
this House are placed in the position by the activities or the 
perception of inactivity to correct uncertainties in the legislation of 
the House Committee on Education and Labor. But perhaps this outpouring 
of concern could have a positive side. Perhaps this could be a 
watershed mark where Congress begins to take a more careful look at 
what the Federal responsibilities for education really are.
  This Member considers himself to be an activist on education, very 
much interested in encouraging education at all levels. But, in my 
judgment, my colleagues, the responsibilities of the Federal Government 
are primarily two, when it comes to education.
  One, it is to assure equal access to public education to all 
Americans. That is a primary role given to the Federal Government by 
several amendments. That is our duty.
  The second responsibility, to be exercised on rare occasions, it 
seems to me, is to act in a few cases where there is a large public 
concern across the Nation about some important aspect of education and 
encourage appropriate actions by the States and their school district 
to meet that concern of high public priority.
  A few years ago, for example, it was felt across the country, and 
then in this Congress, that there was a major deficiency in science and 
match education, especially in our secondary schools. And this Congress 
acted to provide encouragement to the States and their districts to act 
to meet this problem. That is the second and limited role for the 
Federal Government in the field of elementary and secondary education.
  Beyond that, the Federal Government should permit the States to do 
their job in education, and to give them encouragement for their 
responsibilities. No mandates, no certifications, no requirements from 
the Federal Government are appropriate.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, my mother, Vela Lynch Holmes, now in her 
eighties, is a retired schoolteacher. She taught many disadvantaged 
children in this very city.
  She would be the first to say that it is much tougher to teach such 
children today.
  I have come to the floor to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ford], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], and the ranking 
members for the compromise they have forged that begins to recognize 
that compensatory education title I funds should begin to shift more 
toward those most in need of compensatory education.
  I believe that more is needed, but I appreciate that a compromise was 
also needed to move this bill and that the committee has been skillful 
in crafting one.
  I would certainly not want to shortchange a single child based on 
geography, and I do not believe that this compromise does that. Surely, 
what we see when we go home to our own districts or nearby, and I know 
what we see through the local media in this city, reinforces the need 
to pay more attention to the many children we are simply losing in the 
inner city. And we lose them beginning with elementary school. We 
simply are increasingly unable to reclaim them.
  High poverty rates correlate to high dropout rates. And of course, 
these dropout rates, in turn, correlate to the high crime rates.
  The weighted student formula at least begins to recognize that some 
districts have overwhelming poverty and overwhelming numbers of poor 
children. If we expect teachers, administrators, and others to reach 
these children, we simply have to weight the resources toward them.
  Soon, Mr. Chairman, we will have before us a crime bill. I would 
venture that the bill before us today is likely to do a lot more about 
crime than the crime bill and a lot more about many other problems our 
country faces as well.
  I want to thank the chairman and the members of the committee.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague and the future Senator, the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. 
Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
bill as reported by the committee.
  I am somewhat disappointed about that. I had hopes that this 
reauthorization would signal a return to the bipartisan approach that 
for so long dominated education legislation. Unfortunately, that has 
not materialized.
  I must oppose this bill, Mr. Chairman, because it mostly ignores the 
primary role of local teachers, administrators, school boards and 
States in education quality and inserts the Federal Government in areas 
that may be unconstitutional and are certainly inappropriate.
  Once again we see a bill come out of the Education Committee that 
assumes Washington has the answers.
  The home school, and private school certification provisions we have 
heard so much about have no business in this bill. I am a strong 
supporter of the rights of parents to have a choice of how to educate 
their children, and this bill infringes on that.
  Beyond that objection, however, this provision infringes on State 
responsibility. Clearly, certification is a State issue. This provision 
should be just as troubling for public schools as it is for home school 
parents and private schools. I have schools in my State, for instance, 
that rely on teachers to cover several different subjects--we cannot 
afford a Federal mandate that would not let a science teacher teach a 
math class.
  Federal opportunity to learn standards are a huge mistake. With 
opportunity to learn standards, which address conditions in schools, 
the Federal Government is clearly violating the principle of State and 
local control in education.
  Under this bill, the Federal Government will tell districts what 
books they have to buy, what equipment they must spend money on. The 
allocation of resources must be a local issue. In addition, this 
Federal unfunded mandate will invite expensive litigation.
  We have not heard a lot about this, but maybe the most troubling 
provision in this bill is the corrective action provision. The Federal 
Government has absolutely no business targeting local school district 
governance, as this bill does. This is clearly a responsibility for 
State and local cooperation.
  Once again, the feds want 60 percent of the control for 6 percent of 
the bucks.
  No bill is all bad. There are some good things in this bill and it's 
a great improvement compared to the all-out assault on funding for 
rural areas under the Clinton administration's bill.
  The decision to retain a Chapter 2, program is very positive, and I 
believe vital. This is really the only flexible money we give to 
States, and in Wyoming we're doing some great innovative things with 
this money.
  Charter schools can be valuable--we have several up and running in my 
hometown of Casper, WY.
  This bill does provide additional flexibility, which I believe is 
vital. I introduced a bill last year addressing flexibility, and I am 
pleased to see the committee take positive steps in that direction.
  Unfortunately, the Federal power grab so evident throughout this bill 
far outweighs the positive aspects.
  This bill, simply put, is an exercise in micromanagement by the 
Federal Government and unless some serious changes are made, I will be 
forced to vote against this bill.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). The gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee] has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee] for his fine work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Improving America's 
Schools Act. H.R. 6 brings much needed Federal education dollars to our 
public school systems. It sets higher standards for our public schools, 
increases parental involvement, and requires increased accountability 
for all those involved in educating our children. H.R. 6 also addresses 
critical issues in our public school systems by addressing teacher 
training, educational technology, and drug abuse and violence 
prevention programs.
  In particular, I am very pleased with the hard work the committee did 
on title I of the bill and wanted to outline some of the provisions I 
helped add to target assistance where it is most needed.
  Title I contains important provisions that help our schools do a 
better job of keeping some students from dropping out of the system and 
bringing others into it. We need to encourage schools to support and 
expand dropout prevention programs for pregnant teens and teen mothers. 
For those who do not think we should be supporting these young women, 
let me offer some sobering statistics. If we don't help these young 
women stay in school, it will end up costing us. More than half of all 
women who are currently receiving welfare benefits first became mothers 
as teenagers. In my home State of Washington, pregnancy becomes a fact 
of life for 1 of every 13 female teens. The question should not be how 
much it costs to keep these women in school, but how much it costs if 
we do not.
  At the same time, we have got to do a better job of supporting our 
students from the moment they begin elementary school. That is why 
there are provisions in the bill providing funding to schools to 
establish transition projects to support preschool children. We all 
know the importance of intervening as early as possible in order to 
help our at-risk children. This is one way that we can encourage 
schools to focus their energy and resources on helping Head Start and 
Even Start children to enter school ready to learn.
  In between, of course, we must do all that we can to help our 
children thrive in school. I believe the provisions we've outlined in 
title I will allow our schools to do just that. I urge my colleagues to 
support title I and vote for the entire Improving America's Schools 
Act.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank everyone who has 
worked on this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that if H.R. 6 was simply about 
reauthorizing existing elementary and secondary school programs, I 
would be supporting this bill.
  H.R. 6 is about Federal encroachment on a local matter--the education 
of our children. Washington's education elite want to control the 
education of America's children.
  I oppose H.R. 6 because I believe parents, teachers, principals, and 
local school boards in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties have a better 
understanding of our children's needs than Washington bureaucrats.
  Yesterday I received a letter from the National School Boards 
Association, stating:

       For the first time in the almost 30-year history of this 
     landmark education law (Chapter I), the federal government 
     targets local school district governance for the most drastic 
     punitive actions when local student performance is found 
     wanting--regardless of the cause. These actions could include 
     dissolving the local school board, removing the 
     superintendent, abolishing the local school district, and 
     otherwise dismantling the local governance and management 
     structure of the local public schools.

  In other words, this bill says to schools across Alameda and Contra 
Costa Counties: Do it Washington's way or we will come in and replace 
your local school management with our own team of Washington experts.
  I say, Washington, no thank you. We have already seen how much damage 
you can do. In 1992, Congress regulated the cable TV industry. Now 
Government mandates which stations you, the consumer, may receive and 
how much we must pay. So in my area we are deprived of State capital 
news and features in order to receive foreign language and shopping 
channels.
  I am also concerned that H.R. 6 seriously encroaches on the rights of 
parents who choose to educate their children in private schools or at 
home. Experts in private and home-school education are unanimous in 
their opposition to H.R. 6. H.R. 6 would require that all teachers in 
private schools be certified to teach the academic subjects to which 
they are assigned. Also, home schoolers would have to be certified by 
the State before teaching their children. This must be corrected, and 
the Armey amendment, which exempts private and home-school educators, 
is the only amendment that can correct this serious flaw. Rural areas 
must also be exempted.

  Finally, we need to free our teachers to teach--H.R. 6 fails to do 
so. It was the love of teaching that led them to choose this 
profession. It was not an affection for filling out countless 
government reports and assessments.
  Our scarce resources must be focused on teaching our children, not 
satisfying the intellectual and experimental philosophies and social 
agendas of the Washington education elite.
  For these reasons we must say ``no'' to H.R. 6.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
6, the Improving America's School Act, which reauthorizes all major 
Federal elementary and secondary education programs.
  It is with great pride and pleasure that I speak in support of this 
bill, for I was on the Education and Labor Committee in 1965 when we 
first passed the Elementary and Secondary Educational Act. At that time 
it was a landmark piece of legislation which demonstrated the Federal 
Government's commitment to assisting State and local efforts to educate 
the children of America, particularly the disadvantaged, those in 
poverty, and children with special needs.
  We have all witnessed the success of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Programs over the last 30 years. School districts all across 
the Nation depend upon these Federal dollars to meet the educational 
needs of their children, whether it is through chapter I, chapter II, 
the Eisenhower Math and Science Program, Impact Aid, Bilingual 
Education and many other important programs.
  Today the bill we bring to the floor retains the strong Federal 
commitment to help those children most in need, while revamping 
programs to better coordinate with local reform efforts.
  H.R. 6 builds on the education reform framework set out in the Goals 
2000: Educate America Act and provides the necessary assistance to 
local school districts to help all children meet the national education 
goals and raise educational achievement.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all in agreement that we must set high 
educational standards for our children and this bill along with the 
Goals 2000 bill will move us in that direction. However, it deeply 
concerns me that when talk about setting high standards for school 
systems and assuring that children will have the necessary resources to 
meet those high standards many start crying foul and use the excuse of 
Federal mandates to avoid discovering whether or not a school system 
really measure up.
  The opportunity to learn standards are not Federal mandates, they 
simply seek to demonstrate what a child needs in order to meet the high 
educational standards being set at the State and local levels.
  In essence, this is really what the Elementary and Secondary 
Education bill is all about. It is about providing children an 
opportunity to learn by giving school districts additional funds in 
areas where they need extra assistance.
  Providing the resources to provide children with an opportunity to 
learn is not a new concept. This was the original intent of the 
legislation 30 years ago and it still stands true today. This bill 
simply seeks to help school districts move forward in identifying what 
elements in the school system are essential to provide students with an 
opportunity to learn.
  There are many other features of this bill that are significant. The 
new title I formula better targets funds to areas of high 
concentrations of poverty. We establish a new professional development 
program and a new program on technology; we improve the bilingual 
education program; the Impact Aid Program which is of great importance 
to my State is retained and I think improved.
  I would just like to mention two specific areas that are of 
particular interest to me. This first is the reauthorization of the 
Women's Educational Equity Act and the inclusion of many provisions 
throughout the bill dealing with gender equity.
  The bill includes the provisions of the Gender Equity in Education 
Act, a package of bills developed by the congressional caucus on 
women's issues to address the educational inequities girls and women 
face in our education system.
  This was the first time that the caucus put together a legislative 
package on education issues. As Chair of the caucus task force on 
economic and educational equity I worked closely with the Cochairs of 
the caucus, Pat Schroeder and Olympia Snowe and the other caucus 
members in developing this legislative package.

  The Gender Equity in Education Act includes nine bills introduced by 
members of the caucus, several of whom are members of the Education and 
Labor Committee; Representatives Jolene Unsoeld, Lynn Woolsey, and 
Susan Molinari. Nita Lowey, a former member of the committee, also 
contributed to this legislation, as well as Olympia Snowe, Connie 
Morella, Louise Slaughter, and Cardiss Collins.
  The caucus developed this legislation in response to the increasing 
evidence that despite the fact that title IX prohibits sex 
discrimination in our schools, girls continue to face many inequities. 
Research shows that a pattern of gender inequity persists in school 
practices, even where discriminatory policies have been abolished:
  Teachers pay less attention to girls than boys;
  Girls lag in mathematics and science scores, and even those who do 
well in those subjects are not encouraged to choose math and science 
careers;
  Sexual harassment of girls is increasing in our schools;
  Some tests contain biases against girls, hurting their chances for 
scholarships and college admissions;
  Textbooks still ignore or stereotype women;
  Girls learn almost nothing in school about many of their most 
pressing problems like sexual abuse, discrimination, and depression;
  Vocational education programs continue to channel women into 
traditionally female-dominated jobs, which are usually low-skilled and 
low-paying; and
  While women make up the majority of the teaching force, they are not 
well representative among the higher levels of the education 
bureaucracy.
  The Gender Equity in Education Act was developed to address the 
overall inequities for girls in our education system and some very 
specific areas, including teacher training, math and science, pregnant 
and parenting teens, sexual harassment and abuse, coordinated health 
and social services, and data collection.
  The cornerstone of this legislation which was included in H.R. 6 is 
the reauthorization of the Women's Educational Equity Act. I am the 
author of the Women's Educational Equity Act [WEEA] which was 
established in 1974 to promote the letter and spirit of title IX.
  WEEA funds research, development, and dissemination of curricular 
materials, training programs, guidance and testing activities, and 
other projects to promote educational equity for women and girls.
  However, for over a decade WEEA has been severely neglected enduring 
severe budget cuts and was proposed for elimination by previous 
administrations. In 1980 the program received $10 million, but by 1992 
the program had been whittled down to just $500,000. Current funding 
for the program is at $2 million. The Presidents fiscal year 1995 
budget provides for $5 million.
  The bill retains the current WEEA grant program to develop and 
disseminate model programs, curricula, and materials to advance 
educational equity and establishes an implementation grant program to 
provide funds to school districts, community organizations and other 
entities to implement gender equity programs within local schools 
systems.
  The bill also establishes within the Department of Education a 
special assistant for gender equity to promote, coordinate and evaluate 
gender equity programs in all education programs, including the Women's 
Educational Equity Act. Currently gender equity programs of varying 
sizes exist throughout the Department of Education, however, there is 
no mechanism to ensure communication or evaluation of progress among 
all gender equity programs.
  The special assistant to the Secretary for gender equity would help 
assure the promotion, coordination, implementation, and evaluation of 
gender equity activities within the Department of Education and work 
with other Federal agencies with jurisdiction over Federal education 
programs.
  The bill includes provisions to promote professional development 
strategies, methods, and techniques which meet the needs of female 
students. Specifically, the bill requires that chapter I programs, the 
largest Federal elementary and secondary education program, to include 
professional development strategies for identifying and eliminating 
gender and racial bias in instructional materials, methods, and 
practices.
  The bill also includes several provisions within the new Eisenhower 
Staff Development Program which require school districts to incorporate 
teacher training strategies to meet the needs of girls.
  The bill also encourages the recruitment of female and minority 
teachers in subject areas in which they are underrepresented.
  The bill includes dropout programs targeted to address the needs of 
pregnant and parenting teens so that they will stay in school. 
Pregnancy is the most common reason girls give for dropping out of 
school, and almost half of teen mothers who drop out never complete 
high school.
  The bill targets services to pregnant and parenting teens under the 
prevention and intervention services for delinquent youth and youth at 
risk of dropping out under title I. It also specifies that funds under 
this program may be used for health and social services that address 
needs of pregnant and parenting teens at risk of dropping out of 
school. It requires program evaluations to track progress of male and 
female students separately, in order to collect better data on how 
female students are doing comparatively speaking.

  A fundamental prerequisite for an effective learning environment is 
that it be free from sexual harassment and abuse. To address the 
problem of sexual harassment in our schools, the bill includes sexual 
harassment prevention programs in the definition of violence prevention 
programs in the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act (title V).
  It also allows funds under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act to be 
used for sexual harassment prevention programs and other strategies 
including conflict resolution and mentoring to prevent sexual 
harassment in schools.
  Title X of the bill establishes a new coordinated services program 
designed to assist schools in providing comprehensive education, 
health, and social services in a school-based or school-linked setting.
  Many schoolchildren today are struggling with a host of social 
problems--including poverty, poor nutrition, drug abuse, family 
violence, and inadequate health care--that prevent them from achieving 
their full academic potential. A hungry, sick, worried child will not 
learn well; her basic needs must be met before she can turn full 
attention to schooling.
  Under this provision schools and school districts can use up to 6 
percent of their funds received under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Programs to finance the coordination of services.
  The bill also provides funds under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act 
to be used for the development of curricula related to child abuse 
prevention and training of personnel to teach child abuse education and 
prevention to elementary and secondary school children. The Safe and 
Drug Free School Act will help train teachers to recognize and identify 
child abuse and to educate children about child abuse prevention.
  The bill expands data collection requirements for chapter I and all 
major Federal education programs in order to better assess the 
achievement and participation rates of males, females, minority and 
ethnic populations, and the disadvantaged.
  Research and data collection are vital components of any attempt to 
eliminate gender inequity in education. Unfortunately, current 
Department of Education data collection activities provide insufficient 
information on gender issues.
  I am also pleased that this bill includes the Native Hawaiian 
Education Act. The Native Hawaiian Education Act was first established 
in 1988 to fulfill the U.S. Government's historical and legal 
obligation to the native Hawaiian people incurred by its participation 
in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy over 100 years ago.
  For over 70 years the Federal Government has acknowledged its 
responsibility to the native Hawaiians as native Americans, by 
providing assistance for the improvement of their social and economic 
development. The Native Hawaiian Education Act is one of several 
programs designed to uphold the United States' trust responsibility to 
the indigenous people of Hawaii.
  The Native Hawaiian Education Act consists of five programs: The 
native Hawaiian model curriculum implementation project, the native 
Hawaiian family-based education centers, the Native Hawaiian Higher 
Education Demonstration Program, the Native Hawaiian Gifted and 
Talented Program, and the Native Hawaiian Special Education Program.
  H.R. 6 reauthorizes these programs with the exception of the model 
curriculum implementation project. The Federal commitment to this 
program has been phased out over the last several years.
  The bill also establishes the native Hawaiian language immersion 
project to support the revitalization of the native Hawaiian language 
through the public school system.
  In addition, a Native Hawaiian Education Council is established to 
coordinate activities among the five programs and advise the Department 
of Education and the Congress on the educational needs of the native 
Hawaiians and the progress of the Native Hawaiian Education Act.
  The bill also includes a new provision to the native Hawaiian higher 
education demonstration project to prohibit the limitation of 
scholarships to those who attend school in Hawaii.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is the fine product of many hours of hard work 
by Members and staff. I commend the Chair of the subcommittee, Dale 
Kildee, for his good work, and want to especially recognize the Chair 
of the committee, William Ford, with whom I worked on the original 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. I think it is 
particularly fitting that one of the major accomplishments of the 
Education and Labor Committee during his last year in Congress is this 
bill. Bill, you have done great work over the past 30 years. This bill 
is a prime example of your total commitment to our Nation's children.
  I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 6, the 
Improving America's Schools Act.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairmen Ford and Kildee and the 
committee for the hours and hours of work that they have put in on this 
legislation over the last year. The House is indebted to them.
  I am pleased to support H.R. 6. It will help set the direction for 
States and school districts to reform education in this country by 
linking title I funding for disadvantaged students to the content and 
performance standards contained in the Goals 2000 legislation already 
passed by both the House and Senate.
  In addition, I am encouraged that a compromise was reached on the 
formula for the distribution of title I funds so that there will be 
greater targeting in areas with high concentrations of lower income 
students. That is where this funding should be going.
  I am also grateful that the committee accepted my amendment to make 
service learning an allowable use of funds in relevant sections of H.R. 
6.
  Service learning is a method of teaching and learning that combines 
academics and community service. Students develop and apply their 
knowledge and skills in the context of working to solve significant 
social, educational, and environmental problems in the school and the 
community.
  My amendment will encourage the use of the service learning approach.
  Service learning is based on the idea that students learn best by 
doing, by being active and interested in the process of learning. 
Active learning through community service, especially if it is 
curriculum based, improves student achievement by making classroom 
learning more meaningful. It can reengage students turned off by 
traditional teaching methods.
  Service learning can inspire innovative educational methods that 
combine classroom teaching with hands-on work experience. It can 
broaden classroom walls to include the entire community and enable new 
and veteran teachers alike to take advantage of teaching methods that 
promote both academics and civic responsibility.
  Typically, students will spend several class periods each week 
performing community service and the remainder of the program is spent 
in class working on skills specific to the service experience.
  Some schools are integrating community service and academic subjects 
with great success. Many more could do the same.
  In Pennsylvania, the statewide Pennserve Program is working to bring 
a culture of service into the schools. In Philadelphia, sixth grade 
students study nutrition and teach healthy habits to lower-level 
elementary students. Eighth graders work in neighborhood health centers 
to learn about health careers.
  In Milwaukee, juniors and seniors learn construction skills by 
working on an urban rehabilitation project. In Lansing, MI, students 
learn and apply basic math skills by sponsoring a market for senior 
citizens in urban apartment complexes. In Washington State, fifth and 
sixth grade students use scientific skills and computer technology to 
monitor the water quality of a nearby creek.
  I am pleased that the committee accepted my amendment.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6 is good legislation. It will help to 
improve and reform elementary and secondary education in the United 
States and direct Federal funding in an equitable manner. Chairmen Ford 
and Kildee have done excellent work on this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate that all of us 
agree with many of the issues raised by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Owens]. Al shanker would love to have properly certified, highly 
qualified teachers in all New York City schools. He cannot do that. We 
cannot do that with any kind of mandate.
  We would love to have the books, the library equipment, and other 
materials in those schools. The Chapter II Program that some would like 
to eliminate helps them to do just that, as a matter of fact. But we 
cannot guarantee it unless we send money, and that is the focus of this 
debate.
  Local citizens and the courts must deal with the issue of school 
finance equalization. Local citizens and the courts--not the Federal 
Government.
  In Pennsylvania, we have an ideal equalization formula and it works 
well by setting a base for every student. If somebody is able to do 
more than that in the local area, fine, but States provide the base to 
make sure that every-one has equal opportunity.
  So, this argument is not about school resources. The argument is that 
if we do not send any money, we send unfunded mandates, and a golden 
opportunity for all sorts of litigation. So, the little bit of money 
that they would have to spend to improve their education system instead 
is spent in court. That helps the lawyers. That does not help the 
youngsters that we are trying to educate or their parents.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the chairman of the Committee 
on Agriculture.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding me the time. I want to commend him and the chairman and the 
chairman of the subcommittee for the work they have done on this 
legislation.
  As I look through all of the areas that impact upon my district in a 
very positive way, there is some concern, and I understand that the 
issue of home schools and private schools will be addressed adequately. 
And I am glad that they have arrived at some degree of compromise in 
this area.
  But the main thing is that this enhances the education of our 
children. It gives us the tools that they need to secure employment, to 
secure jobs. An educated citizenry is the best citizenry that any 
nation can have. I commend them, one, for working on the issue that has 
become somewhat controversial, but mainly in the thrust that this 
legislation takes in behalf of the children of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, a bill which 
would greatly expand the Federal Government's control over the entire 
landscape of American education. I also rise to express my strong 
support for the amendment offered by Mr. Armey.
  Instead of fostering the real school reform America needs, H.R. 6 
would restrict the ability of parents to participate in the critical 
decisions affecting their children's education. The bill would create 
new frivolous spending programs, pile still more Federal mandates on 
local school districts, and expand Federal control over local schools--
both public and private.
  One of the most destructive provisions of H.R. 6 would require 
certification not only of public schoolteachers, but of private 
teachers as well. Of course, the practical effect of this requirement 
would be to add significant new burdens on private schools.
  Ironically, the sponsors of H.R. 6 entrust Federal regulators, and 
the same education bureaucrats and unions who've given us the status 
quo, with broad new powers to oversee school ``reform.'' But they don't 
trust parents to have any responsibility for deciding what's best for 
their children's education.
  Given the abysmal performance of many of our Nation's public schools, 
it should come as no surprise that an increasing number of parents are 
electing to secure a better education for their children.
  Our Government's educational policy should be especially supportive 
of parental choice. Parents who are willing to invest significant time 
and resources in the education of their children are much more likely 
to produce a better educated child.
  This natural human desire--to see to it that one's children are 
educated in the best possible manner--is a noble impulse, and it should 
be nurtured, not discouraged. Rather than seek to change the 
fundamentals of human behavior, a sound educational policy should tap 
into this force as a powerful engine to improve the quality of our 
Nation's schools.
  But the authors of H.R. 6 think that they know best. Their bill would 
take a giant step in the wrong direction by infringing on the rights of 
parents and restricting the educational options available to them.
  To protect against some of the bill's potentially destructive 
provisions, I am pleased to lend my full support to the amendment 
offered by Mr. Armey. This amendment will improve H.R. 6 by deleting 
the bill's mandatory Federal teacher certification requirements, and by 
further clarifying that none of the bill's other provisions infringe on 
the right of parents to secure the best possible education for their 
children.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the Armey amendment. It 
will protect the fundamental right of parents and students to choose 
their own education. Giving parents and students greater freedom to 
participate in one of the most critical decisions affecting their lives 
is the best way to improve the quality of our educational system.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, in the last several days my office has 
received nearly 1,000 phone calls from constituents who are opposed to 
the establishment of Federal standards for teacher certification. They 
are especially concerned over the potential application of such 
standards to home schooling arrangements. I fully support their 
concerns.
  Thousands of parents in Maryland's Third Congressional District, and 
hundreds of thousands across this country, have made the decision to 
educate their children at home. They have made this decision for 
educational reasons and for religious reasons. What all these parents 
have in common is a concern for their children's education, and a 
willingness and a determination to instill in their children a love of 
learning and a strong sense of values.
  I rise in support of the amendments to strike the certification 
provision from this bill, and to further assure that no provision of 
this bill will extend Federal involvement to home schools, or private, 
parochial or religious schools. The provision which has generated so 
much controversy would mandate that teachers under the jurisdiction of 
local State agencies must be certified to teach the subject which they 
are assigned. I support adoption of the amendment to strike this 
provision from the bill.
  The responsibility for maintaining high standards in our schools 
rests with State and local education agencies. That responsibility 
includes hiring qualified teachers and ensuring that those teachers 
remain qualified. The Federal Government cannot usefully intrude into 
the micromanagement of local schools. It certainly should not seek to 
interfere with or dictate the terms of decisions by parents to home 
school their children.
  The amendments we debate today recognize that parents and local 
educational boards better understand the needs of the children in their 
own communities than the Federal Government does. I am pleased to 
support these amendments to assure the continued independence of home 
schools as well as private, parochial, and religious schools.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor to express my support 
as well as my disappointment for the bill before us today. Much to my 
disappointment, provisions still exist in the bill which may make it 
impossible for me to fully support it. However, I continue to hope that 
during floor consideration today, and through House-Senate conference, 
these differences will be worked out.
  For the sake of our children it is vital that education not fall 
victim to partisan politics. This bill is one of the most important 
legislative efforts of this session. The $12 billion sent to State and 
local school agencies under authority of this act must become the 
driving force for a dramatically improved education system for all 
students.
  This driving force is embodied in what I believe to be the two most 
important policy goals of this reauthorization, guaranteeing high 
quality programs for disadvantaged children and granting schools the 
flexibility necessary to provide a quality education to the students 
they serve. I firmly believe that quality improvements must go hand in 
hand with allowing schools greater flexibility in the use of Federal 
funds in exchange for increased student achievement.
  Originally, I supported the administration's bill because of its 
focus on flexibility as well as targeting more closely the limited but 
desperately needed chapter I funds. Due to the implementation of the 
1990 census data, New York City lost a devastating $63 million in 
chapter I dollars. New York City needs increased chapter I funds, not 
decreased funds to serve our ever growing chapter I population. I 
simply could not support a formula which would have further devastated 
our area, and believed that the administration's formula was the 
fairest and best approach in helping to target our already limited 
Federal dollars.
  While the committee worked out a fair and equitable consensus chapter 
I funding formula which I felt I could support, I was dismayed by the 
inclusion of the opportunity to learn standards [OTL]. It was for this 
reason that I felt I had to vote against reporting the bill favorably 
from the Education and Labor Committee. These OTL standards would 
provide far too much micromanagement by the Federal Government. 
According to the language in the bill, in order for a State to receive 
its share of the money allocated under chapter I, it must develop 
standards with which the Secretary of Education agrees. If the 
Secretary does not agree with the State's OTL standards, he or she 
would be able to withhold funds. This clearly goes against local 
control and increased flexibility, two policies I do not believe we can 
afford to back away from in this reauthorization bill.
  I was particularly pleased that during committee consideration a 
Republican amendment to retain a refocused but flexible Chapter II 
Program was adopted. I did not agree with the administration's proposal 
to eliminate chapter II and I strongly supported reinstating this 
program, while at the same time refocusing it on education reform and 
achievement of the National Education Goals. These chapter II funds may 
be used for technology, library services materials, assessments and the 
development of instructional and educational materials, as long as they 
are tied to overall school reform efforts.
  Additionally, I was pleased that the committee adopted the gender 
equity amendments offered by myself and Congresswoman Mink. Recent 
reports documented that girls do not receive equitable amounts of 
teacher attention, that they are less apt than boys to see themselves 
reflected in the materials they study, and that they often are not 
expected or encouraged to pursue higher level mathematics and science 
courses. The implications of these reports are clear--the system must 
change!
  I know all too well that gender politics is a subject that many in 
our schools, and society, prefer to ignore, but we can no longer afford 
to ignore the potential of girls and young women in our society. 
Congresswoman Mink and I were able to use this reauthorization process 
to infuse education policy with gender equity efforts and implement 
programs devoted to gender equity issues.
  I was very pleased that large provisions from my equity training 
legislation was incorporated into H.R. 6. One means of implementing 
policies devoted to gender equity is through the creation of equity 
training programs to identify and eliminate inequitable practices in 
the classroom. My language makes equity training programs an allowable 
use of funds under the Elementary and Secondary Act. This language will 
act as a catalyst to help encourage schools to develop equity training 
programs for teachers, administrators and counselors.
  Whether you are looking at preschool, elementary, or high school 
classrooms, at female teachers or male teachers, research consistently 
reveals that boys receive more attention than girls. This indicates 
that gender equity issues are not well understood by many educators. 
Teachers are not always aware of the ways in which they interact with 
students. The use of equitable teaching strategies, and innovative 
training programs, should be one of the criteria by which gender equity 
is implemented.
  I remain committed to working with my colleagues to garner bipartisan 
support for this legislation in order to obtain real change in 
education. This is the last reauthorization of elementary and secondary 
education programs before the beginning of the 21st century. It is 
imperative that we work out our disagreements to help the children of 
our country by focusing on high quality standards and flexibility.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act 
of 1994 extends through 1999 almost all of the major Federal elementary 
and secondary education programs.
  Three of the programs included in this legislation are: the Chapter I 
Program, a revised Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science 
Education Program, and the Magnet Schools Assistance Program.
  Since the inception of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, title I, the current title, chapter 1, is changed to title I as 
it was in the original legislation, is the largest Federal elementary 
and secondary education program contained in this legislation. Title I 
through the years has provided a vital and crucial link in helping to 
provide high quality education to economically disadvantaged children.
  In this regard, title I has served as a basis of hope in helping many 
economically disadvantaged young people sometimes perceived as losers 
to become winners. Chapter I has been extremely significant in 
providing services to our Nation's children and youths in reading and 
mathematics as well as in the development of critical thinking skills.
  The move toward excellence and inclusiveness which began so nobly in 
1965 when, then, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Elementary 
and Secondary Act into law, must be permitted to move forward.
  The current Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Program will 
become the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program which 
will encourage professional development of teachers, staff, and 
administrators in increasing their knowledge and skills of the subject 
matter.
  The Magnet Schools Assistance Program is the primary program that the 
Congress has established that helps school districts fulfill the 
Federal commitment to school desegregation in this country. A recent 
report on school desegregation, issued in December 1993 by Gary Orfield 
states: ``For the first time since the Supreme Court declared school 
segregation in the South unconstitutional in 1954, the public schools 
in that region have turned back toward greater segregation.'' Clearly, 
how we modify and reauthorize the Magnet Schools Assistance Program 
will demonstrate our continuing commitment to school desegregation in 
compliance with Brown versus Board of Education (1954).
  Mr. Speaker, I support the opportunity-to-learn standards provisions 
as included in this legislation. Opportunity-to-learn standards would 
identify the elements necessary in helping children to achieve the 
content and performance standards. The legislation clearly provides for 
content and performance standards as well as assessments that would be 
established or used for title I programs. Content standards indicate 
what children should know and be able to do; performance standards 
determine whether children are learning. I fully support both content 
and performance standards; however, I firmly believe that it is 
inequitable to hold students accountable for their performance without 
addressing the capacity of the school to educate children to the level 
required under the student performance standards. If we require content 
and performance standards, then opportunity-to-learn standards should 
be included in this legislation.
  This legislation is needed in order to enrich and expand educational 
opportunity for children and youths at all levels, that is, 
kindergarten through postsecondary.
  The reality is that chapter I and the other programs included in this 
legislation are crucial if we are to provide world class standards for 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6, the Improving 
America's School Act of 1994.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, a bill 
which proposes real reform and improvement to elementary and secondary 
education in America and oppose any amendment that will weaken this 
legislation.
  H.R. 6 contains new and innovative improvement to the current system 
by restructuring existing programs to focus on helping disadvantaged 
children achieve high performance standards, provides much-needed 
assistance to States and school districts in their school reform 
efforts, and establishes the much-needed professional development 
programs for all teachers.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to the major provisions of this bill, H.R. 
6 also contains several lesser known programs, including those which 
are critically needed in the outlying areas. These programs consist of 
a newly created de Lugo Territorial Education Improvement Program to 
fund innovative proposals which will enhance student learning, increase 
the standard of education, and improve the performance levels of all 
students in the outlying areas. H.R. 6 also restores critically needed 
funds for territorial teacher training programs as well as restoring 
and restructuring territorial coverage currently provided under 
chapters 1 and 2.
  Mr. Chairman, similar to other small territories, my district of 
American Samoa is currently facing an educational crisis. Our teachers 
lack the proper credentials to give our children the quality education 
they deserve and we are without funds and technical assistance to 
implement innovative and quality programs to bring our educational 
system up to par with mainland levels. According to recent national 
educational tests, the territories are at the bottom of the national 
scale when it comes to achievement scores and we definitely need the 
type of assistance provided through this legislation to enable our 
students to reach mainland levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my appreciation to my distinguished 
colleague from Michigan, Mr. William Ford, chairman of the Education 
and Labor Committee for his suburb leadership demonstrated in guiding 
H.R. 6 to the floor today and also commend him for his endless support 
of real reform and improvement in elementary and secondary education. I 
am also grateful to my colleagues on Education and Labor for their hard 
work and devotion to providing quality education for our children, 
especially for the lesser known programs which are critically needed in 
the outlying areas.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure and oppose any 
amendments which weaken H.R. 6.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, as a former teacher and school 
administrator, I am personally proud to participate in today's 
deliberations, as we prepare to pass H.R. 6 and extend for another 5 
years the authorization for most of the Federal elementary and 
secondary education programs.
  Many of us may have honest differences of opinion about the merits of 
specific provisions of this legislation. But on the whole, it is a 
landmark legislative package, the purpose of which is to help America's 
schools strive for excellence.
  I want to congratulate and thank Chairman Ford, Chairman Kildee, the 
committee members and staff for patiently crafting this comprehensive 
legislation, which is so crucial to America's future.
  There are many important features of this bill which will benefit 
millions of schoolchildren and teachers, in New York and throughout the 
country.
  The compensatory education provisions of title I, for example, will 
help disadvantaged children to achieve high levels of performance, and 
not just focus on remedial, low-level skills. I applaud the committee 
for its efforts to promote such a pursuit of excellence.
  I am also very impressed by the cost effectiveness of such title I 
programs.
  Studies have shown that spending $1 on such programs now can save at 
least $6 later, just by preventing students from having to repeat 
grades. If one adds in other effects, such as more advanced job skills, 
earlier availability for employment, decreased incidence of 
unemployment, and fewer social and crime problems, the benefits to 
society are enormous when compared to the very modest cost.
  In New York City, over half the city's schools are title I schools 
and benefit from its program, 666 schools out of a total of 1,105. An 
estimated 237,200 students receive title I services. The sad fact, 
however, is that 428,948 students are actually eligible because of 
educational deprivation, but there isn't enough funding to go around.
  To put it into perspective, Mr. Chairman, in some parts of the 
country, if a school has 25 percent of its students at poverty level, 
it becomes a title I school. By contrast, in New York City a school 
must have 62.2 percent of its students at poverty level to satisfy the 
targeting requirements for the limited resources. Thus, a New York City 
school can have almost two-thirds of its students at poverty level and 
still not be included in the title I programs, a fact which provides a 
strong argument for the merits of the Clinton administration's original 
proposals to target more of the available resources at the Nation's 
poorest schools.
  I would like to mention several other important features of this 
legislation that will benefit children throughout our country.
  For instance, title IV authorizes funding of the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools Programs. These drug and violence prevention programs will help 
to create the safe environment that our schoolchildren deserve. Title V 
promotes magnet schools, which offer advanced programs to attract 
children of different backgrounds and promote racial, ethnic, and 
cultural diversity.
  Under title II, a program of technology education provides funds to 
improve learning through technology. It also will provide, through the 
Eisenhower Professional Development Program, sustained and intensive 
teacher training opportunities not just for math and science teachers, 
as in the past, but for teachers in all the core academic areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this legislation and urge its 
passage. It is a monumental investment in our children's future, and 
therefore in America.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my opposition to H.R. 6, 
Improving America's Schools Act as it is currently drafted. In 
particular, I am concerned about its mandatory opportunity to learn 
standards which would dramatically increase Federal involvement in 
local education.
  The problem of unfunded Federal mandates has finally begun commanding 
the attention of Congress. Several amendments have been offered to 
bills on the House floor to address unfunded Federal mandates, and a 
number of members, including myself, have introduced bills to eliminate 
existing Federal mandates that are unnecessary or too onerous, and 
require Congress to pay for the laws we pass in the future. If you are 
at all concerned about unfunded Federal mandates and the burden that 
they place on States and local governments, then you should join me in 
opposition to these mandatory opportunity to learn standards.
  Clearly, one of the most objectionable and controversial provisions 
in H.R. 6 would require states receiving title I funds to develop 
opportunity to learn standards that focus on the inputs into the 
educational process, rather than the results. The standards would be 
submitted to the Secretary of Education for approval and would force 
local schools to issue annual reports on how they are living up to 
them.
  Opportunity to learn standards could dictate everything from how many 
books the library must have to how many computers or film projectors 
each school must purchase. Local school districts--many of which are 
already operating under tight budgets--may be forced to hire more 
teachers, build bigger schools, or completely rewrite their curriculums 
in order to comply with the standards.
  However, probably the most egregious aspect of H.R. 6 is that it 
directs States and local school districts to develop these new 
standards and to issue the required annual reports without helping them 
pay for it. And once these standards have been set, the Federal 
Government still will not provide any guidance or funding to help 
schools meet the prescriptive standards. Congress must stop passing the 
buck onto State and local communities. If Congress really believes that 
these opportunity to learn standards will improve student achievement, 
then Congress should be willing to provide schools the necessary 
funding to realize these standards.
  In my rural district in Pennsylvania, many areas lack a strong, 
growing economic base to generate the local taxes needed to 
sufficiently support their education system. As it is, most of my 
school districts rely on title I funds just to get by, and teachers, 
school administrators, and parents must struggle with tight budgets, 
cut through bureaucratic red tape, and overcome different social 
problems to help students learn. The imposition of new opportunity to 
learn standards will force many school districts to spend what little 
money they do have on projects they can not afford. These new unfunded 
Federal mandates would tie the hands of local school officials who 
would be compelled to dedicate more money to meeting these arbitrary 
standards, processing paperwork, and issuing annual reports instead of 
targeting these scarce resources on the school's most critical needs.
  Aside from being unfunded Federal mandates, opportunity to learn 
standards are also intrusive Federal mandates that provide for micro-
management of our local education systems by the Federal Government. 
The Secretary of Education will approve States opportunity to learn 
standards, issue regulations concerning their development, and deny 
title I funds to States that fail to submit their standards for 
approval. In my view, mandatory opportunity to learn standards are 
dangerous because they open the door for the U.S. Department of 
Education to become intimately involved in the education of our 
children.
  This directly conflicts with my support for and our country's 
tradition of local control of education. Only 6 percent of the money 
spent on elementary and secondary education comes from the Federal 
Government while the rest is provided by State and local governments. 
Despite the Federal Government's relatively small financial 
contribution, H.R. 6 and its mandatory opportunity to learn standards 
would allow the U.S. Department of Education to significantly influence 
curriculum quality and resource allocations, decisions traditionally 
made at the State and local levels.
  While it may be appropriate for the Federal Government to set 
national goals and provide leadership in education policy, I believe we 
must preserve the principle of State and local authority in education. 
Congress must recognize that policymakers and bureaucrats in Washington 
are too far removed to affect positive change, and that we must make 
sure the Federal Government does not suffocate and kill local education 
with excessive rules, regulations, paperwork, and bureaucracy. Instead, 
the Federal Government must provide flexibility, encourage innovated 
reform strategies on the local decision making.
  Mr. Chairman, opportunity to learn standards clearly move education 
policy in the wrong direction; therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose unfunded Federal mandates and to support local control of 
education by supporting the Goodling-Stenholm-Condit-Gunderson 
amendment striking mandatory opportunity to learn standards from H.R. 
6.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering H.R. 6, the 
Improving America's Schools Act. If only the bill's title were true. 
This comprehensive bill is comprehensively bad for America's schools 
and school children.
  Let me share my concerns over two of the harmful provisions in this 
bill: the opportunity to learn provision and the private, parochial, 
and home school provision. Opportunity to learn standards represent 
nothing less than another mandatory, unfunded Federal mandate which 
dictates what States must expend to educate students. These standards 
are not about education, they are about power, about giving the 
Washington bureaucracy the power to withhold Federal funds from local 
school districts that fail to toe the line. Local school districts 
would have to get Federal approval on the quality and availability of 
their materials, teachers, and facilities.
  This power grab violates our Nation's history of local control over 
education standards. Local control provides a protection that schools 
will respond to the special needs of its student body. The Federal 
Government provides less than 6 percent of all money spent on education 
but wants its fingers in every part of the State and local education 
pie. This makes the Federal Government the judge, juror, and 
executioner over local choices like curriculum quality and resource 
allocations. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
  Another provision in the bill would intrude the Federal Government 
into relations between parent and child. This provision would require 
certification of all people who educate our children, with no specific 
exemption for parents. I am not alone with my concern. I have received 
hundreds of phone calls, letters, and faxes stating opposition to this 
provision. The Texas Association of School Administrators wrote to 
state:

       The Texas Association of School Administrators believes 
     that a local school district can best perform its education 
     duties when allowed the flexibility to provide curriculum, 
     services, and staff which appropriately address the needs of 
     that district. As such, we are disturbed by the possibility 
     of Federal legislation that would wrest control from the 
     local school district and place it in the hands of 
     bureaucrats who would be too far removed from a district to 
     understand or anticipate its needs.

  The letter goes on to say:

       We are still concerned that passage of this amendment would 
     set a dangerous precedent. * * * We ask that you do what must 
     be done to curtail the potential dangers of legislation which 
     extends Federal control to the minutiae of local school 
     district concerns.

  I could not have said it any better.
  This Congress must not endorse a Federal power grab which sets 
mandates for schools which don't receive Federal funds. The Federal 
Government has no business interfering with State certification 
requirements for public school teachers. This mandate is yet another 
layer of bureaucracy which is the last thing American education needs.

  This provision would tie the hands of public schools as well. Public 
schools often utilize teachers or substitute teachers to teach classes 
outside their concentration or certification area. An ironic side to 
this provision is even certified teachers would be banned from home 
schooling their own children at some point of their education. The 
Miller amendment would make it extremely difficult for any parent to 
meet the requirements to home school their own children in the 
secondary grades.
  The Ford amendment does not go far enough. In my home State of Texas 
home schools are legally referred to as private schools and therefore, 
the Ford amendment would not apply. I support the Armey amendment to 
protect parental rights and protect private and home schools from 
overbearing regulations.
  The Congress should look for ways to strengthen the family not 
restrict parental involvement in our children's futures. My colleagues, 
actions speak louder than words. Please show, through your actions, 
that you are truly committed to strengthening the American family and 
vote in favor of the Armey amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, today's debate over our children's education 
is proof positive that parents can and do make a difference and that 
Congress does listen. My office has received just under 1,000 calls and 
letters. This overwhelming response is indicative of the strength of 
convictions and overwhelming public outcry that results when the 
Federal Government messes around in the issue of home schooling, which 
hinges on whether the Government should interfere with parents' freedom 
of choice to educate their children away from Federal intrusion.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA] has been providing 
Federal support to our Nation's handicapped and disadvantaged children 
since it was enacted in 1965 as a part of President Johnson's war on 
poverty program. The reauthorization of the ESEA, under consideration 
today, will provide nearly $7.5 billion in grants for schools to 
provide compensatory education services to disadvantaged children. The 
program has been restructured to focus on assisting these children to 
achieve high-performance standards and providing more decisionmaking 
authority and flexibility at the local level. The bill is not perfect, 
but it is worthy of support.
  The controversy today deals with provisions that would require 
teacher certification and what effects that would have on home 
schooling and nonpublic schools. In attempting to ferret out the facts 
from the fiction, my office has been pleased to work with Larry 
Kaseman, executive director of the Wisconsin Parents Association [WPA]. 
I share their view that the teacher certification issue in the bill 
does need clarification. While I believe that the language would not 
apply to homeschoolers or to nonpublic schools in the State of 
Wisconsin, this is not true for all States. Therefore, I believe that 
the teacher certification requirement for both homeschoolers and other 
nonpublic schools is an unwarranted intrusion by the Federal Government 
and I will support the efforts to clarify or remove the requirement.
  I don't want the Federal Government in the business of micromanaging 
the education of our children. Traditionally, educating our children 
has been left up to individual States, local school boards, and 
parents. I believe we need to assure the folks back home that we intend 
to keep it that way.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6 for several 
reasons. First, I am acquainted with the educational issues raised in 
this legislation from a local perspective. As a member of the Carlsbad 
Unified School District for over 12 years, I can tell you that the way 
to improve our educational system is not to micromanage every aspect 
over all forms of education. H.R. 6 does just that.
  Specifically, by mandating the opportunity to learn standards, H.R. 6 
will prove to be an enormous unfunded Federal mandate on States like 
California. Title 1 funding is the single largest Federal education 
program for elementary and secondary schools. In order for our schools 
to receive these funds, the opportunity to learn standards would 
require them to issue annual reports and quantify resources. Is it 
going to improve the education our children are getting to involve 
bureaucrats in Washington in every decision a school makes? Absolutely 
not.
  The opportunity to learn standards in this bill is exactly the type 
of legislation Congress passes with astonishing frequency that does 
nothing to the real issue at hand. Will H.R. 6 improve education in our 
public schools at a time when our educational system is in crisis? 
Absolutely not. Instead of focusing on students, the real effect of 
this bill is to give more power to Washington. It violates the United 
States long history of local control over education. Bottom line: Our 
schools operate more effectively and efficiently with concerned parents 
and teachers at the helm. No mountain of regulations or new standards 
issued from bureaucrats is going to improve this system.
  Second, I am opposed to the amendment proposed by my colleague from 
California [Mr. Miller], and adopted in committee. His amendment again 
asserts that the long tentacle of Washington must intrude and impose 
upon everything. Mr. Miller's amendment requires local education 
agencies to guarantee to the State agencies that all full-time teachers 
are certified to teach the academic subjects to which they are 
assigned. This is an assault on the educational systems which exist as 
an alternative to the public school system: The autonomy and existence 
of private schools and home schools are jeopardized by this amendment.
  With the Miller amendment, H.R. 6 establishes new Federal control 
over any nonpublic school that does not take funds under this act. I 
urge passage of the Armey amendment to correct this onerous language.
  Finally, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. This body should be 
passing legislation which does not expand the power of Washington over 
an elementary school in Oceanside, CA. This body should pass 
legislation to ensure that those students in Oceanside, and across the 
Nation, receive the best education in the world.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in section 2 of 
House Resolution 366, is considered by title as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and each title is considered as read.
  Title I of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, shall be considered by title of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as proposed to be amended by title I.
  No amendments to the substitute, as modified, are in order unless 
printed in House Report 103-426 or in that portion of the Congressional 
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII prior to 
Friday, February 25, 1994.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendments printed in House Report 103-426. Each amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, may amend portions of the bill not yet 
read for amendment, shall be considered as read, is not subject to 
amendment, and is not subject to a demand for a division of the 
question.
  Debate time on each amendment printed in the report will be 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the 
amendment.
  Amendments caused to be printed by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee] may be considered en bloc, may amend portions of the bill not 
yet read for amendment, shall be considered as read, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question.
  The Clerk will report section 1.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.R. 6

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Improving 
     America's Schools Act of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Effective dates; transition.

 TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 
                                  1965

Sec. 101. Amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
              1965.
``Sec. 1. Short title.

        ``TITLE I--IMPROVED EDUCATION FOR DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN

``Sec. 1001. Declaration of policy and statement of purpose.
``Sec. 1002. Authorization of appropriations.

    ``Part A--Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies


                 ``SUBPART 1--BASIC PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

``Sec. 1111. State plans.
``Sec. 1112. Local educational agency plans.
``Sec. 1113. Eligible school attendance areas.
``Sec. 1114. Schoolwide programs.
``Sec. 1115. Targeted assistance schools.
``Sec. 1116. Assessment and school and local educational agency 
              improvement.
``Sec. 1117. State assistance for school support and improvement.
``Sec. 1118. Parental involvement.
``Sec. 1119. Professional development.
``Sec. 1120. Participation of children enrolled in private schools.
``Sec. 1121. Fiscal requirements.


                         ``SUBPART 2--ALLOCATIONS

``Sec. 1122. Grants for the outlying areas and the Secretary of the 
              Interior.
``Sec. 1123. Allocations to States.
``Sec. 1124. Basic grants to local educational agencies.
``Sec. 1124A. Concentration grants to local educational agencies.
``Sec. 1125. Targeted grants to local educational agencies.
``Sec. 1126. Special allocation procedures.
``Sec. 1127. Carryover and waiver.

             ``Part B--Even Start Family Literacy Programs

``Sec. 1201. Statement of purpose.
``Sec. 1202. Program authorized.
``Sec. 1203. State programs.
``Sec. 1204. Uses of funds.
``Sec. 1205. Program elements.
``Sec. 1206. Eligible participants.
``Sec. 1207. Applications.
``Sec. 1208. Award of subgrants.
``Sec. 1209. Evaluation.

               ``Part C--Education of Migratory Children

``Sec. 1301. Program purpose.
``Sec. 1302. Program authorized.
``Sec. 1303. State allocations.
``Sec. 1304. State applications; services.
``Sec. 1305. Secretarial approval; peer review.
``Sec. 1306. Comprehensive needs assessment and service-delivery plan; 
              authorized activities.
``Sec. 1307. Bypass.
``Sec. 1308. Coordination of migrant education activities.
``Sec. 1309. Distance learning.
``Sec. 1310. Definitions.

``Part D--Prevention and Intervention Services for Delinquent Youth and 
                     Youth at Risk of Dropping Out

``Sec. 1401. Findings; purpose; program authorized.
``Sec. 1402. Payments for programs under this part.


                    ``SUBPART 1--STATE AGENCY PROGRAMS

``Sec. 1403. Amount of allocation to State.
``Sec. 1404. State plan.
``Sec. 1405. Use of funds.
``Sec. 1406. Institution-wide projects.
``Sec. 1407. Three-year projects.
``Sec. 1408. Transition services.


                    ``SUBPART 2--LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAMS

``Sec. 1410. Programs operated by local educational agencies.
``Sec. 1411. Program evaluations.
``Sec. 1412. Definitions.

 ``Part E--Federal Evaluations, Demonstrations, and Transition Projects

``Sec. 1501. Evaluations.
``Sec. 1502. Demonstrations of innovative practices.
``Sec. 1503. Innovative elementary school transition projects.

                      ``Part F--General Provisions

``Sec. 1601. Federal regulations.
``Sec. 1602. Coordination of Federal, State, and local administration.
``Sec. 1603. State administration.

              ``TITLE II--IMPROVING TEACHING AND LEARNING

    ``Part A--Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program

``Sec. 2101. Findings.
``Sec. 2102. Purposes.
``Sec. 2103. Authorization of appropriations; allocation between 
              subparts.


                     ``SUBPART 1--FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

``Sec. 2111. Program authorized.
``Sec. 2112. Authorized activities.


                 ``SUBPART 2--STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES

``Sec. 2121. Program authorized.
``Sec. 2122. Allocation of funds.
``Sec. 2123. Within-state allocations.
``Sec. 2124. State applications.
``Sec. 2125. State-level activities.
``Sec. 2126. Local plan and application for improving teaching and 
              learning.
``Sec. 2127. Local cost sharing.
``Sec. 2128. Local allocation of funds and allowable activities.
``Sec. 2129. Higher education activities.


                     ``SUBPART 3--GENERAL PROVISIONS

``Sec. 2131. Reporting and accountability.
``Sec. 2132. Definitions.

               ``Part B--Technology Education Assistance


     ``SUBPART 1--ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

``Sec. 2201. Short title.
``Sec. 2202. Findings.
``Sec. 2203. Statement of purpose.
``Sec. 2204. Definitions.
``Sec. 2205. In-State apportionment.
``Sec. 2206. Elementary and secondary education programs.
``Sec. 2207. Higher education programs.
``Sec. 2208. Library and literacy programs.
``Sec. 2209. State educational technology plan.
``Sec. 2210. Local educational technology plan.
``Sec. 2211. Federal administration.
``Sec. 2212. Allocation of funds.
``Sec. 2213. Authorization of appropriations.


  ``SUBPART 2--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION OF EDUCATIONAL 
                               TECHNOLOGY

``Sec. 2214. Findings and purposes.
``Sec. 2215. Office of educational technology.
``Sec. 2216. National long-range plan.
``Sec. 2217. Federal leadership.
``Sec. 2218. Authorization of appropriations.


                    ``SUBPART 3--STAR SCHOOLS PROGRAM

``Sec. 2219. Findings.
``Sec. 2220. Statement of purpose.
``Sec. 2221. Program authorized.
``Sec. 2222. Eligible entities.
``Sec. 2223. Applications.
``Sec. 2224. Leadership and evaluation activities.
``Sec. 2225. Definitions.


       ``SUBPART 4--DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS

``Sec. 2226. Educational technology product development.

                    ``Part C--Library Media Program

``Sec. 2231. Establishment of program.
``Sec. 2232. Allocation to States.
``Sec. 2233. State plans.
``Sec. 2234. Distribution of allocation to local educational agencies.
``Sec. 2235. Authorization of appropriations.

           ``Part D--Support and Assistance for ESEA Programs

``Sec. 2341. Findings.
``Sec. 2342. Purpose.
``Sec. 2343. Programs authorized.
``Sec. 2344. Requirements of comprehensive assistance centers.
``Sec. 2345. Duties of comprehensive assistance centers.
``Sec. 2346. Maintenance of service.
``Sec. 2347. State-based activities.
``Sec. 2348. Program priorities.
``Sec. 2349. Technology-based technical assistance.
``Sec. 2350. Administration.
``Sec. 2351. Authorization of appropriations.

                 ``Part E--Education Program Strategies

``Sec. 2401. Findings and Statement of purpose.
``Sec. 2402. Authorization of appropriations; duration of assistance.


                  ``SUBPART 1--STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

``Sec. 2411. Allotment to States.
``Sec. 2412. Allocation to local educational agencies.


                       ``SUBPART 2--STATE PROGRAMS

``Sec. 2421. State uses of funds.
``Sec. 2423. State applications.


             ``SUBPART 3--LOCAL TARGETED ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

``Sec. 2431. Targeted use of funds.
``Sec. 2432. Administrative authority.
``Sec. 2433. Local applications.


           ``SUBPART 4--21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS

``Sec. 2441. Findings.
``Sec. 2442. Funds for community learning centers.
``Sec. 2443. Programs.
``Sec. 2444. Requirements.
``Sec. 2445. Definition.

           ``TITLE III--EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING

            ``Part A--Fund for the Improvement of Education

``Sec. 3201. Fund for the improvement of education.

                 ``Part B--Gifted and Talented Children

``Sec. 3301. Short title.
``Sec. 3302. Findings and purposes.
``Sec. 3303. Definitions.
``Sec. 3304. Authorized programs.
``Sec. 3305. Program priorities.
``Sec. 3306. General provisions.
``Sec. 3307. Administration.
``Sec. 3308. Authorization of appropriations.

                    ``Part C--Public Charter Schools

``Sec. 3401. Purpose.
``Sec. 3402. Program authorized.
``Sec. 3403. Applications.
``Sec. 3404. Selection of grantees; waivers.
``Sec. 3405. Uses of funds.
``Sec. 3406. National activities.
``Sec. 3407. Definitions.
``Sec. 3408. Authorization of appropriations.

                      ``Part D--Arts in Education


                 ``SUBPART 1--SUPPORT FOR ARTS EDUCATION

``Sec. 3501. Support for arts education.


                       ``SUBPART 2--COMMUNITY ARTS

``Sec. 3502. Short title.

            ``Part E--Inexpensive Book Distribution Program

``Sec. 3601. Inexpensive book distribution program for reading 
              motivation.

                       ``Part F--Civic Education

``Sec. 3701. Instruction on the history and principles of democracy in 
              the United States.
``Sec. 3702. Instruction in civics, Government, and the law.
``Sec. 3703. Report; authorization of appropriations.

                  ``Part G--Native Hawaiian Education

``Sec. 3801. Short title.
``Sec. 3802. Findings.
``Sec. 3803. Purpose.
``Sec. 3804. Native Hawaiian Education Council.
``Sec. 3805. Native Hawaiian Language Immersion Project.
``Sec. 3806. Native Hawaiian family-based education centers.
``Sec. 3807. Native Hawaiian Higher Education Demonstration Program.
``Sec. 3808. Native Hawaiian Gifted and Talented Demonstration Program.
``Sec. 3809. Native Hawaiian Special Education Program.
``Sec. 3810. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 3811. Definitions.

             ``Part H--Allen J. Ellender Fellowship Program

``Sec. 3901. Findings.


      ``SUBPART 1--PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE AND SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

``Sec. 3911. Establishment.
``Sec. 3912. Applications.


      ``SUBPART 2--PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

``Sec. 3915. Establishment.
``Sec. 3916. Applications.


    ``SUBPART 3--PROGRAMS FOR RECENT IMMIGRANTS, STUDENTS OF MIGRANT 
                      PARENTS AND OLDER AMERICANS

``Sec. 3921. Establishment.
``Sec. 3922. Applications.


                     ``SUBPART 4--GENERAL PROVISIONS

``Sec. 3925. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 3926. Authorization of appropriations.

          ``Part I--Territorial Education Improvement Program

``Sec. 3931. Findings and purposes.
``Sec. 3932. Grant authorization.
``Sec. 3933. Restrictions.
``Sec. 3934. Authorization.

         ``TITLE IV--SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES

``Sec. 4001. Short title.
``Sec. 4002. Findings.
``Sec. 4003. Purpose.
``Sec. 4004. Funding.

    ``Part A--State Grants for Drug and Violence Prevention Programs

``Sec. 4101. Reservations and allotments.
``Sec. 4102. State applications.
``Sec. 4103. State and local educational agency programs.
``Sec. 4104. Local applications.
``Sec. 4105. Local drug and violence prevention programs.
``Sec. 4106. Evaluation and reporting.

                      ``Part B--National Programs

``Sec. 4201. Federal activities.
``Sec. 4202. Programs for Native Hawaiians.

                      ``Part C--General Provisions

``Sec. 4301. Definitions.
``Sec. 4302. Materials.
``Sec. 4303. Prohibited uses of funds.
``Sec. 4304. Certification of drug and alcohol abuse prevention 
              programs.

                  ``TITLE V--MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE

                       ``Part A--Promoting Equity

``Sec. 5101. Findings.
``Sec. 5102. Statement of purpose.
``Sec. 5103. Program authorized.
``Sec. 5104. Definition.
``Sec. 5105. Eligibility.
``Sec. 5106. Applications and requirements.
``Sec. 5107. Priority.
``Sec. 5108. Use of funds.
``Sec. 5109. Prohibitions.
``Sec. 5110. Limitation on payments.
``Sec. 5111. Authorization of appropriations; reservation.

                   ``Part B--Equalization Assistance

``Sec. 5201. Technical and other assistance for school finance.

                ``Part C--Women's Educational Equity Act

``Sec. 5301. Findings and statement of purpose.
``Sec. 5302. Programs authorized.
``Sec. 5303. Local implementation grants.
``Sec. 5304. Research and development grants.
``Sec. 5305. Authorization of appropriations.

                      ``TITLE VI--INDIAN EDUCATION

``Sec. 6001. Findings.
``Sec. 6002. Purpose.

         ``Part A--Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies

``Sec. 6101. Purpose.
``Sec. 6102. Grants to local educational agencies.
``Sec. 6103. Amount of grants.
``Sec. 6104. Applications.
``Sec. 6105. Authorized services and activities.
``Sec. 6106. Student eligibility forms.
``Sec. 6107. Payments.

    ``Part B--Special Programs and Projects to Improve Educational 
                   Opportunities for Indian Children

``Sec. 6201. Improvement of educational opportunities for Indian 
              children.
``Sec. 6202. Special educational training programs for the teachers of 
              Indian children.
``Sec. 6203. Fellowships for Indian students.
``Sec. 6204. Gifted and talented.
``Sec. 6205. Tribally Controlled Schools Act.

   ``Part C--Special Programs Relating to Adult Education for Indians

``Sec. 6301. Improvement of educational opportunities for adult 
              Indians.

           ``Part D--National Activities and Grants to States

``Sec. 6401. National activities.
``Sec. 6402. State educational agency review.

                    ``Part E--Federal Administration

``Sec. 6501. Office of Indian education.
``Sec. 6502. National Advisory Council on Indian Education.
``Sec. 6503. Peer review.
``Sec. 6504. Preference for Indian applicants.
``Sec. 6505. Minimum grant criteria.

        ``Part F--Definitions; Authorizations of Appropriations

``Sec. 6601. Definitions.
``Sec. 6602. Authorizations of appropriations.

              ``Part G--Bureau of Indian Affairs Programs

``Sec. 6701. Standards for the basic education of Indian children in 
              Bureau of Indian Affairs schools.
``Sec. 6702. National criteria for dormitory situations.
``Sec. 6703. Regulations.
``Sec. 6704. School boundaries.
``Sec. 6705. Facilities construction.
``Sec. 6706. Bureau of Indian Affairs education functions.
``Sec. 6707. Allotment formula.
``Sec. 6708. Administrative cost grants.
``Sec. 6709. Budget preparation and submission.
``Sec. 6710. Uniform direct funding and support.
``Sec. 6711. Policy for Indian control of Indian education.
``Sec. 6712. Education personnel.
``Sec. 6713. Management information system.
``Sec. 6714. Bureau education policies.
``Sec. 6715. Uniform education procedures and practices.
``Sec. 6716. Recruitment of Indian educators.
``Sec. 6717. Annual report.
``Sec. 6718. Rights of Indian students.
``Sec. 6719. Regulations.
``Sec. 6720. Definitions.
``Sec. 6721. Voluntary services.
``Sec. 6722. Proration of pay.
``Sec. 6723. Extracurricular activities.
``Sec. 6724. Early Childhood Development Program.
``Sec. 6725. Tribal Departments of Education.
``Sec. 6726. Payments.

               ``TITLE VII--BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

``Sec. 7001. Short title.
``Sec. 7002. Findings, policy, and purpose.
``Sec. 7003. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 7004. Definitions; regulations.
``Sec. 7005. Indian and Alaskan Native children in schools.
``Sec. 7006. Residents of the territories and freely associated 
              nations.

    ``Part A--Bilingual Education Capacity and Demonstration Grants

``Sec. 7101. Purpose of grants.
``Sec. 7102. Program development and implementation grants.
``Sec. 7103. Program enhancement projects.
``Sec. 7104. Whole-school programs.
``Sec. 7105. System-wide improvement grants.
``Sec. 7106. Applications.
``Sec. 7107. Intensified instruction.
``Sec. 7108. Capacity building.
``Sec. 7109. Subgrants.
``Sec. 7110. Geographic distribution of funds.
``Sec. 7111. Programs in Puerto Rico.
``Sec. 7112. Evaluations.

                  ``Part B--Research and Dissemination

``Sec. 7201. Use of funds.
``Sec. 7202. Research.
``Sec. 7203. Academic excellence awards.
``Sec. 7204. State grant program.
``Sec. 7205. National clearinghouse for bilingual education.
``Sec. 7206. Instructional materials development.
``Sec. 7207. Evaluation assistance centers and multifunctional resource 
              centers.

             ``Part C--Bilingual Education Teacher Training

``Sec. 7301. Purpose.
``Sec. 7302. Training for all teachers program.
``Sec. 7303. Bilingual education teachers and personnel grants.
``Sec. 7304. Bilingual education career ladder program.
``Sec. 7305. Graduate fellowships in bilingual education program.
``Sec. 7306. Applications.
``Sec. 7307. Program requirements.
``Sec. 7308. Stipends.
``Sec. 7309. Program evaluations under part C.

                        ``Part D--Administration

``Sec. 7401. Office of bilingual education and minority language 
              affairs.
``Sec. 7402. Release time.
``Sec. 7403. Education technology.
``Sec. 7404. Notification.
``Sec. 7405. Continued eligibility.
``Sec. 7406. Limitation of authority.

                          ``Part E--Transition

``Sec. 7501. Transition provisions.

            ``Part F--Emergency Immigrant Education Program

``Sec. 7601. Purpose.
``Sec. 7602. State administrative costs.
``Sec. 7603. Withholding.
``Sec. 7604. State allocations.
``Sec. 7605. State applications.
``Sec. 7606. Payments.
``Sec. 7607. Uses of funds.
``Sec. 7608. Reports.
``Sec. 7609. Authorization of appropriations.

                        ``TITLE VIII--IMPACT AID

``Sec. 8001. Findings.
``Sec. 8002. Purpose.
``Sec. 8003. Payments relating to Federal acquisition of real property.
``Sec. 8004. Payments for eligible federally connected children.
``Sec. 8005. Policies and procedures relating to children residing on 
              Indian lands.
``Sec. 8006. Application for payments under sections 8003 and 8004.
``Sec. 8007. Payments for sudden and substantial increases in 
              attendance of military dependents.
``Sec. 8008. Facilities.
``Sec. 8009. State consideration of payments in providing State aid.
``Sec. 8010. Federal administration.
``Sec. 8011. Administrative hearings and judicial review.
``Sec. 8012. Definitions.
``Sec. 8013. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 8014. Transfer of payments.

                     ``TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                         ``Part A--Definitions

``Sec. 9101. Definitions.
``Sec. 9102. Applicability of this title.
``Sec. 9103. References in other Acts.

   ``Part B--Flexibility in the Use of Administrative and Other Funds

``Sec. 9201. Consolidation of State administrative funds for elementary 
              and secondary education programs.
``Sec. 9202. Single local educational agency States.
``Sec. 9203. Consolidation of funds for local administration.
``Sec. 9204. Administrative funds study.
``Sec. 9205. Consolidated set-aside for Department of the Interior 
              funds.
``Sec. 9206. Availability of unneeded program funds.

   ``Part C--Coordination of Programs; Consolidated State and Local 
                              Applications

``Sec. 9301. Purpose.
``Sec. 9302. Optional consolidated State application.
``Sec. 9303. General applicability of State educational agency 
              assurances.
``Sec. 9304. Consolidated local applications.
``Sec. 9305. Other general assurances.

                           ``Part D--Waivers

``Sec. 9401. Waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements.

                      ``Part E--Uniform Provisions

``Sec. 9501. Maintenance of effort.
``Sec. 9502. Prohibition regarding State aid.
``Sec. 9503. Participation by private school children and teachers.
``Sec. 9504. Standards for by-pass.
``Sec. 9505. Complaint process for participation of private school 
              children.
``Sec. 9506. By-pass determination process.
``Sec. 9507. Prohibition against funds for religious worship or 
              instruction.

                        ``Part F--Gun Possession

``Sec. 9601. Policy for gun possession.

                ``TITLE X--COORDINATED SERVICES PROJECTS

``Sec. 10001. Findings and purpose.
``Sec. 10002. Definitions.
``Sec. 10003. Project development and implementation.
``Sec. 10004. Uses of funds.
``Sec. 10005. Continuing authority.
``Sec. 10006. Federal agency coordination.

             ``TITLE XI--SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ACT

``Sec. 11001. Findings.
``Sec. 11002. Purpose.
``Sec. 11003. Federal assistance in the form of loans.
``Sec. 11004. General provisions.
``Sec. 11005. Definitions.
``Sec. 11006. Authorization.

           ``TITLE XII--URBAN AND RURAL EDUCATION ASSISTANCE

             ``Part A--Urban Education Demonstration Grants

``Sec. 12000. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 12001. Findings.
``Sec. 12002. Statement of purpose.
``Sec. 12003. Urban education demonstration grants.
``Sec. 12004. Research and evaluation grants.
``Sec. 12005. Use of funds.
``Sec. 12006. Augustus F. Hawkins National Commission on Urban 
              Education.
``Sec. 12007. Evaluation.

             ``Part B--Rural Education Demonstration Grants

``Sec. 12101. Findings.
``Sec. 12102. Statement of purpose.
``Sec. 12103. Rural school grants.
``Sec. 12104. Higher education grants.
``Sec. 12105. National Commission on Rural Education.''.

      TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION PROVISIONS ACT

     Part A--Applicability of the General Education Provisions Act

Sec. 211. Title; applicability; definitions.
Sec. 212. Repeal and redesignation.

                  Part B--The Department of Education

Sec. 221. New heading for part A.

         ``Part A--Functions of the Department of Education''.

Sec. 222. Office of non-public education.
Sec. 223. General authority of the Secretary.
Sec. 224. Coordination.

                 Part C--Appropriations and Evaluations

Sec. 230. Forward funding.
Sec. 231. Availability of appropriations.
Sec. 232. Contingent extension of programs.
Sec. 233. State reports.
Sec. 234. Biennial evaluation report.
Sec. 235. Technical amendment.
Sec. 236. Coordination.

              Part D--Administration of Education Programs

Sec. 241. Joint funding of programs.
Sec. 242. Collection and dissemination of information.
Sec. 243. Review of applications.
Sec. 244. Technical amendment.
Sec. 245. Use of funds withheld.
Sec. 246. Applications.
Sec. 247. Regulations.
Sec. 248. Records; reduction in retention requirements.
Sec. 249. Release of records.
Sec. 250. Protection of pupil rights.
Sec. 251. Enforcement.
Sec. 252. Technical amendments.
Sec. 253. Equity for students, teachers, and other program 
              beneficiaries.

                Part E--Related Amendments to Other Acts

Sec. 261. Department of Education Organization Act.

                  TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO OTHER ACTS

 Part A--Amendments to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

Sec. 311. Allocations under section 611 of the idea.
Sec. 312. Treatment of chapter 1 State agencies.
Sec. 313. Infants and toddlers with disabilities.

           Part B--Education for Homeless Children and Youth

Sec. 320. Amendments to table of contents.

             ``Subtitle A--Adult Education for the Homeless

       ``Subtitle B--Education for Homeless Children and Youth''.

Sec. 321. Statement of policy.

             ``Subtitle A--Adult Education for the Homeless

``Sec. 701. State literacy initiatives.''.
Sec. 322. Education for homeless children and youth.

        ``Subtitle B--Education for Homeless Children and Youth

``Sec. 721. Statement of policy.
``Sec. 722. Grants for State and local activities for the education of 
              homeless children and youth.
``Sec. 723. Local educational agency grants for the education of 
              homeless children and youth.
``Sec. 724. Secretarial responsibilities.
``Sec. 725. Definitions.
``Sec. 726. Authorization of appropriations.''.

                      Part C--Impact Aid Statutes

Sec. 331. Amendments to Public Law 815.
``Sec. 2. Portion of appropriations available for payments.
``Sec. 3. Establishment of priorities.
``Sec. 5. Limitation on total payments to any local educational 
              agency.''.
Sec. 332. Repeal of Public Law 874.

               Part D--Amendments to Adult Education Act

Sec. 335. Amendments to Adult Education Act.

          PART E--AMENDMENTS TO EDUCATION COUNCIL ACT OF 1991

Sec. 341. Findings.
Sec. 342. National writing project.

                TITLE IV--NATIONAL EDUCATION STATISTICS

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Findings; purpose; definitions.
Sec. 403. National Center for Education Statistics.
Sec. 404. Duties of the Center.
Sec. 405. Performance of duties.
Sec. 406. Reports.
Sec. 407. Advisory Council on Education Statistics.
Sec. 408. Confidentiality.
Sec. 409. Dissemination.
Sec. 410. Cooperative education statistics systems.
Sec. 411. National assessment of educational progress.
Sec. 412. Authorization of appropriations.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Study of Federal efforts to assist in school reform.
Sec. 502. Budget compliance.

  Mr. KILDEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that section 1 be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1 of the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified?
  If not, the Clerk will report section 2.
  The Clerk read as follows:

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATES; TRANSITION.

       (a) Effective Dates.--(1)(A) Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the provisions of title I of this Act shall 
     take effect July 1, 1995, except that those provisions of 
     title I that apply to programs under title VIII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by 
     this Act, and to programs that are conducted on a competitive 
     basis, shall be effective with respect to appropriations for 
     use under such programs in fiscal year 1995 and in subsequent 
     fiscal years.
       (B) Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965, as amended by title I of this Act, shall take 
     effect on October 1, 1994.
       (2) The provisions of title II of this Act shall be 
     effective upon enactment, except that section 250 of such 
     title shall be effective--
       (A) July 1, 1995 for non-competitive programs in which 
     funds are allocated on the basis of a formula; and
       (B) for programs that are conducted on a competitive basis, 
     with respect to appropriations for use under such programs in 
     fiscal year 1995 and in subsequent fiscal years.
       (3)(A) Parts A and B of title III of this Act shall take 
     effect July 1, 1995.
       (B) Part C of title III of this Act shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1994.
       (b) Transition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a recipient of funds under the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as in effect prior to amendment by 
     this Act, may use funds available to it under such 
     predecessor authority to carry out necessary and reasonable 
     planning and transition activities in order to ensure a 
     smooth implementation of programs authorized by this Act.

  Mr. KILDEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that section 2 be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2 of the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title 1 is as follows:

 TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 
                                  1965

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 
                   EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

       The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This Act may be cited as the ``Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965''.

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 103-426.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. FORD of Michigan

  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an 
amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. 
Kildee].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan:
       Page 218, strike lines 10 through 18
       Page 762, after line 8, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 9508. APPLICABILITY TO HOME SCHOOLS

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect home 
     schools.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment may amend portions 
of the bill not yet read for amendment and shall not be subject to a 
demand for a division of the question.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the simplest way to describe this 
amendment is that it is an unnecessary solution to a nonexisting 
problem. But there is a perception that has been generated in one way 
or another that there is language in the legislation that upsets 
people. This amendment strikes the language that people are upset about 
from the legislation. And although that language had nothing at all to 
do with home schooling, we go the extra mile and provide a new section 
9508 entitled ``Applicability to Home Schools,'' saying, ``Nothing in 
this Act shall be construed to affect home schools.''
  As I said at the beginning of the debate on the bill, we did not 
believe that the Miller amendment was getting us into the area that we 
have always, during the history of legislation, respected, of undue 
Federal intervention in the prerogatives of State and local school 
administrations. The question of whether or not home schooling is 
allowed is not a Federal question. It is a State question. And it 
revolves around the attitudes in the various States about compulsory 
school attendance.
  Around the turn of the century we took the children off of the slag 
heaps in the coal mines and out of the sweat shops in our big cities, 
and we told farmers that they will not keep their children out of 
school in the spring to plant, and keep them out of school in the fall 
to harvest, because it was believed, State by State they came to the 
conclusion that it was in the public interest to require the education 
of the population.

                              {time}  1300

  Now, home schooling exists in various forms I would expect, in 
virtually all of the States, and it comes about for a number of 
reasons.
  Now one would ever try to, I hope, justify home schooling on the 
ground that it was an excuse for a farmer to keep his kids home to work 
on the farm when they should be in school, or for a coal miner to keep 
his kids home to work on the slag heaps because that is what he wanted 
them to do. There are other laws that would kick in in both of those 
instances, I expect, in most States.
  We had no intention, in accepting the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] which came at the very end of 
the markup of this bill, of doing anything that would affect the 
relationship between the States and their people with respect to either 
private schools or home schools. Unfortunately, what has been generated 
is a fiction that somehow the Miller language would affect private 
education, which it did not. If the amendment had affected private 
education it would not be in the bill, because, as one of the people 
who came to this floor with the original version of this bill in 1965, 
I can assure this House that during all of those years we have worked 
very closely with the private schools.
  Now, I have discovered something. Some people who have been talking 
about private school choice have convinced themselves in their 
ignorance of the true facts that private schools do not now participate 
in the programs that we are reenacting here today for the ninth time 
since we originally enacted them. Private schools participate to a 
very, very large degree. They participate slightly less now than they 
did when we started because of a decision of the Supreme Court a few 
years ago called the Felton decision.
  When the Felton decision put a limitation on the accommodation 
between public school authorities and private school authorities, the 
committee promptly reacted to that by passing what was called the 
Felton fix, which provided a pot of money for school districts and 
private schools to work out arrangements that would meet the 
constitutional objections of the Felton decision.
  If you read that decision, it went further than the Court ever went 
before. In its dictum, it tied the hands of those school districts that 
had for years before quite willingly worked to maximize the 
participation by private school children in title I of this bill. We 
fixed that, we believe, and the GAO indicates that, as a result of the 
fix, we have almost recovered the level of participation by private 
schools that they had before the decision.
  We will come later to another amendment which I understand they are 
still working on on the other side. I asked the Committee on Rules to 
make an amendment by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] in order last 
night. Unfortunately, from whatever cause, some people suggest that it 
was inadvertence on the part of the staff, the amendment that was 
delivered to the Committee on Rules to be made in order was not the 
amendment that he was discussing. When we read the language of the 
amendment that was delivered to the committee, we immediately shared it 
with the private school authorities and discovered that they are 
strongly alarmed, and that in his zeal to be the savior of the private 
schools, Mr. Armey is actually subjecting the parochial schools to the 
possibility of lawsuits that we have managed to avoid for them for 29 
years. We will deal with that when the amendment comes up. I understand 
that they are working on their amendment over there and probably have 
had some contract with the U.S. Catholic Conference by now that will 
enable them to improve the amendment somewhat.
  But this amendment that I offer for the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee] and myself is clear and straight. You have got phone calls 
about a section of the bill, on page 218, lines 10 through 18, that 
were added by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] in the 
committee. This amendment strikes all of that language out without 
qualification, any at all. It puts the bill as if the amendment had 
never been adopted.
  I say that it is an unnecessary solution to a problem that does not 
exist. Because if any of us had believed that that language did in fact 
say what people are saying that it said, we would never have accepted 
it in the first place. Our amendment goes further to put at rest people 
who placed an improper interpretation of the Miller amendment by 
simply, flatly stating that nothing in this act shall be construed to 
affect home schools adversely.
  We do not approve of home schools, and we do not disapprove of them. 
It is none of our business. It should not be the Federal Government's 
business to intervene in that matter, and we want to keep Federal 
education legislation as pure as it now has been for 29 years.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to overwhelmingly support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who wishes to claim the time reserved for opponents of 
the amendment?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
since there are not any opponents.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee explained exactly what 
this amendment does, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he said.
  I do not believe the legislation at the present time does what some 
people think it does, but if they think that, then, of course, we have 
now corrected it.
  My argument had nothing to do with whether one group of people or one 
group of educators are involved. My argument is that we on the Federal 
level should have nothing to do with certification of teachers 
whatsoever. It is positively a State responsibility. I tried to explain 
earlier that you really have to have been a school administrator to 
understand that there are times when you positively cannot get a 
certified teacher. I would rather say qualified anyway than certified, 
because I can get some qualified teachers who may have a master's 
degree, but they do not have pedagogical training. I have some other 
descriptions of what it is. But they would be ideal teachers in the 
classroom.
  If you have a resignation 2 weeks before school begins, you 
positively have to get the best possible person you can get into that 
classroom. You cannot steal a certified teacher some other place. You 
have to get the best person and that person may not have all of the 
necessary education credits in order to be properly certified by that 
State. A school may have an extra section, as I said before, of 
chemistry to teach. You cannot go out and hire one whole new properly 
certified chemistry teacher to teach one class at $30,000 to $40,000 a 
year. You have to get the best possible general science teacher that 
you can find, or the best advanced math teacher who can pick up that 
section, and you can give them the general chemistry program at that 
particular time.
  I am just pointing this out to show you how complicated it is for 
States.
  Can you imagine how complicated it would then be from the Federal 
level where we get involved in certification?
  My whole argument is against our being involved in certification. I 
do not believe the legislation, or the person who submitted it intended 
it to deal with any one particular group that is not now covered. They 
are covered by the States. They are covered by local teaching 
requirements or local school districts. We should not be involved at 
all.
  So if you accept the chairman's amendment, then you have corrected 
any fear that they may have, and we can go on keeping in mind that 
everybody else is protected under GEPA; private and parochial schools 
are protected under GEPA. Therefore, we should not need any additional 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, it is important, because of all the 
publicity that has been involved in this issue, that every Member 
understand exactly what we are doing. If you want to solve the problem 
or the perception that there is a problem regarding the ability of home 
schools, private schools, religious schools, et cetera, to provide for 
their own certification criteria of their teachers and not have that 
controlled by the Federal Goverment or, in many cases, the State 
governments, you must vote yes on the Ford amendment.
  This is the amendment that solves that problem by doing two things. 
First, it deletes the whole section on teacher certification. There 
was, frankly, a bit of a philosophical debate in the committee about 
whether there should or should not be a Federal role for teacher 
certification. Obviously the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] 
and myself and others never believed there should be, but in credit to 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], recognizing the controversy 
over this whole section, he said, ``Let us just delete the whole 
section and be done with it.''

                              {time}  1310

  Second, Mr. Ford adds a provision that says, ``Nothing contained in 
this act shall be construed to affect home schools.'' So we solved, 
second, or once again, this issue of whether we will or will not affect 
the home schools. Now having said that, I know that there is a great 
desire, because of all the publicity over this issue, for everyone to 
vote for the Armey amendment. I am going to tell you we have to work 
out the language of the Armey amendment before I think most of you will 
want to vote for that, and, hopefully, that can be accomplished in the 
very near future.
  But the problem is that the Armey amendment, as written, says that 
nothing in this act shall be construed to permit, allow, encourage, 
authorize any Federal control over any aspect of any private, 
religious, or home school that does not receive funds under this act.
  The problem with that, ladies and gentlemen, is that most private 
schools and some home schools receive all kinds of Federal money. They 
can participate directly or indirectly in such program as title I, the 
Eisenhower Professional Development, the Star schools, library media, 
innovative education programs, gifted and talented, the RIF program, 
civic education, the Ellender Fellowships, bilingual immigrant in 91-
42.
  So, because all of that activity is there, they receive some form of 
Federal funds which, as the Armey amendment is presently drafted, would 
bring them under the control, the very thing the Armey amendment, I 
think, intends not to do.
  So, understand, again, you do solve the problem of home schools by 
voting for the Ford amendment, and, hopefully, there will be some 
language resolved later in this debate that will allow Mr. Armey to 
make sure that none of the provisions of this act in other sections 
other than teacher certification get into this area of home schools and 
regulating private education.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Understandably, the gentleman is much more knowledgeable on this 
issue, being on the committee. Would it be inappropriate for Members to 
vote for both amendments, in your opinion?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I am not opposing the Armey amendment. I guess my 
advice is, to people, to simply understand the Ford amendment solves 
the home schools issue on teacher certification. What Mr. Armey 
intended to do was to clear up any potential problems in other 
sections. The problem is we have to work out the language of the Armey 
amendment to make sure we clear it up and we do not further confuse it.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are all of goodwill, here trying to solve, 
get language that will address what is perceived to be a problem. I 
think it is important, however, that the solution should not create 
another problem, and that is very, very important. That is why the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] and I offered this amendment to make 
sure that solution does not create another problem.
  It is very simple. It strikes from the bill the language on 
certification, strikes all that language, and then indicates that this 
act does not apply in any way to home schools.
  My problem with the Armey amendment is that it does create another 
problem. First of all, let me indicate that the Seventh Day Adventists 
have sent a letter indicating support of the Ford/Kildee amendment. I 
have here, too, a letter from the department of education of the 
Catholic Conference.
  Their concern with the language of the Armey amendment--may I read 
part of it:

       It has also come to our attention that Congressman Armey 
     will offer an amendment to H.R. 6 which, in part, would add 
     the following new provision: ``Nothing in this act shall be 
     construed to permit, allow, encourage, or authorize any 
     Federal control over any aspect of any private, religious, or 
     home school that does not receive funds or does not 
     participate in programs or services under the act.''
       We oppose this provision in the Armey amendment for two 
     reasons: First of all, the Armey amendment explicitly states 
     that private schools that do not participate in programs 
     under H.R. 6 are not subject to Federal control, the 
     amendment implies that private schools who themselves or 
     whose students and teachers do participate in H.R. 6 
     programs, are subject to broad Federal control.

  I submit, Mr. Chairman, with the adoption of the Armey amendment we 
would jeopardize those schools, those students, and those teachers in 
the private and parochial schools who are able to participate in H.R. 
6.
  The attorneys at the Catholic Conference have scrutinized this 
language very carefully over 2 days and arrive at that very same 
conclusion. They feel that language is such that the Federal control 
could be exercised over those schools that do participate, by saying 
those who do not participate cannot have Federal control, you imply 
that those who do participate will have Federal control.
  They also go on to say in their letter:

       It has also been suggested that the following sentences 
     could be added at some time to the language quoted above: 
     ``This section shall not be construed to bar private, 
     religious, or home schools from participation in programs or 
     services under this act.'' This sentence states a truism 
     which only serves to underscore our concern that this 
     provision in the Armey amendment separates private schools 
     into two groups, schools that do or do not participate in 
     Federal education programs under H.R. 6 with the former being 
     susceptible to broad Government control. Highlighting the 
     distinction exacerbates rather than alleviates the concern.

  They raise questions as to both parts of the Armey amendment. I think 
the Ford/Kildee amendment avoids those pitfalls. I am sure that if the 
Armey amendment passes, there will be a plethora of court cases that 
will follow because we will be saying that those who do receive, the 
schools who do receive or the students who do receive some assistance 
or teachers who receive some assistance are susceptible to broad 
Federal control.
  I just think we will have court cases. Those who have been very 
involved in nonpublic education for many years, the United States 
Catholic Conference, oppose the amendment, based upon a close scrutiny 
of the law, and the Seventh Day Adventists support the Ford/Kildee 
amendment.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me be very clear: I am only going to try to be repetitive in 
order to help purchase the time necessary to see if we can all have a 
consensus on what we are doing next.
  Let me just echo the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee] that if you want to solve this problem, you support the Ford 
amendment. This is the amendment that deals with home school 
certification. Also, that we have language that either has to be 
corrected on the Armey amendment or else it creates the very problem 
for the private schools that it was thought this was going to solve. I 
do not know if we are going to get that language worked out or not.
  Perhaps if the chairman of the full committee will yield for a 
question. Is it the chairman's intent to have a recorded vote on his 
amendment?
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. I thank the gentleman. I say to the gentleman, 
``yes.''
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Perhaps we could get on to the recorded vote, which 
would then allow us during that time to see if we could work out the 
language on Armey. Is that acceptable to everybody?
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman is ready to go, 
surely.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to thank everybody. I want to thank the chairman, the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. I want to thank my 
own ranking Republican member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling].
  Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, a very difficult situation in which 
we find ourselves, and, as my colleagues know, there has been an 
enormous amount of concern expressed from across the country regarding 
this. The trick that we have here is to write language that makes 
America's home schoolers feel secure that they can continue to enjoy 
practicing their freedom in their home rather than defending their 
freedom in the courts. That concern is what first caused me to become 
involved in this legislative effort.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, we naturally want to reach out and 
provide the same sense of certainty, and surety and security that the 
freedoms will be secured for private schools in addition to home 
schools.
  Within the context of the private schools, Mr. Chairman, we have a 
particular generosity on the part of the private Catholic schools that 
should be recognized in that so often the Catholic schools involve 
themselves in such a way as to participate in programs covered by this 
bill, H.R. 6, on behalf of other students, and that should be protected 
as well.
  We have the curious phenomenon that 17 States in America define 
``home school'' in such a way as to call them private schools. The 
difficulty we have had is in writing legislative language that provides 
a sense of security for the freedoms of all of these people who 
practice the education of their young people outside of the public 
schools, and in that process we will, and should correctly, vote for 
the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] 
which deletes the entire section which has been so threatening to these 
schools. And I would encourage my colleagues to vote for that.
  Where I differ with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], the 
chairman of the committee, is his belief that the amendment does the 
entire job. While I grant that it does an enormous amount of good and 
should be supported for that purpose, Mr. Chairman, I still believe 
there is more that needs to be done. My staff and I have been working 
with the attorneys for the Catholic schools, and with the attorneys for 
other private schools and with the attorneys for the home schoolers, 
and we have an amendment which we believe, under consideration after 
this vote, will in fact provide that certainty for all persons 
involved.
  Unfortunately the final concerns raised by the private Catholic 
schools were not clearly enunciated until after the amendment was filed 
with the Committee on Rules yesterday. We will be offering a unanimous 
consent request to add that final perfecting language to our amendment. 
We assume that no one will object to it. The gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Ford] has certainly assured me he will not object to that 
unanimous consent request, in which case, once that request is honored, 
we can proceed then with the Armey amendment, and at that point we can 
have, I think for all parties concerned, a full and certain 
understanding that the legislation is corrected to the extent that 
their freedoms will not be threatened either by bureaucratic 
intervention or by courtroom cases.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been a long and arduous process. The patience of 
all of us has been tried, I think, sometimes beyond what many of us 
thought was necessary. But I think we can resolve this problem today, 
and we ought to do so in order to put an end to that anxiety.
  Let me encourage then the Members of the body to please vote for the 
Ford amendment as he has printed it, and then give consideration to my 
amendment, recognizing the impact, if my colleagues will, of my 
unanimous consent request when I make it. We should then, I think, have 
a very quick debate and be able to vote on the Armey amendment at that 
time, and all of us can spend the weekend feeling confident that we 
have relieved people of the anxiety that their freedoms might be 
compromised in any respect and move on with the rest of the business on 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ford], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and their staffs for their patience and 
their cooperation in our efforts to work out this rather difficult 
language.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair informs Members that each side has 16 minutes 
of debate time remaining.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ford] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, which extends for 5 
years the appropriation for most of our Federal elementary and 
secondary education programs. This very important bill supports major 
education initiatives and provides funding for school improvement, 
education of migratory children, expanding opportunities for learning, 
urban and rural education assistance, prevention and intervention 
services for at-risk youth, to name just a few.
  Over the past several weeks, our office has received numerous calls 
from parents who teach their children at home and who are concerned 
about a provision in the bill that apparently would have required all 
teachers to be certified. This would have given Federal control over 
home schools.
  The amendment by Representatives Ford and Kildee states that nothing 
in the bill shall be construed to affect home schools, thereby, 
protecting home schoolers. In my home State in Georgia, the general 
assembly passed legislation making it possible for parents to teach 
their children at home.
  I am a strong supporter of the parents' right to select that type of 
education for their children. The Federal Government does not have the 
right to usurp that choice, and we should not take it upon ourselves to 
take that option of home schooling away from parents.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support the Ford-Kildee amendment and to support H.R. 6. Our schools 
need it, our parents need it, and, most of all, our children need it.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] for the purpose of a 
colloquy.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Michigan [Mr. Ford] for this utmost 
fairness in seeing that the very difficult problem is quickly being 
resolved, and I would simply ask, and I think this is the case, that in 
the distinguished chairman's statement nothing contained in this act 
can be construed to affect home schools, and that would mean whether or 
not a home school is treated as a private school or home school under 
State law.
  Would that be correct?
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Yes. Whatever somebody else calls it, my 
understanding is that people wanted to be assured that in those States 
that permit it people who choose to educate their children at home will 
be permitted to do so. We are not going to get into that field, and 
that is the intention of that language.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ford] for yielding this time to me, and I want to say to 
the House that I am terribly sorry about the misinformation and the 
misconstruing of the language that I put into this bill. It was my 
feeling, after very often being confronted in my district with teachers 
who tell me that they are forced to teach classes for which they have 
not studied, nor do they know the subject matter, for the convenience 
of their school and/or their school district, and thereby feeling that 
they cannot carry out their obligations to their students, that, when 
we are spending $8 billion and $9 billion in the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, and this is targeted to the poorest and the 
most disadvantaged children in our society, that the least we could do 
for the shareholders of this operation, for the taxpayers, is to ensure 
that those children, where we are sending Federal money, would be 
entitled to have a qualified teacher teach them the subject for which 
they are teaching.

                             {time}   1330

  That sounds fairly logical, that no longer should we continue to 
tolerate a teacher who is schooled and qualified in English having to 
teach geometry against their will or against their qualifications, or 
let us say we have a PE teacher who is qualified to teach PE all of a 
sudden teaching algebra because it is convenient for the school 
district or they cannot find a qualified person. We start to ask the 
question, no wonder these children are falling behind in their test 
scores and such.
  But this amendment never did have any impact on home schoolers. That 
never was intended. It was discussed in the committee, and the approach 
was within the public school system to make sure that qualified 
individuals were teaching our children the subject they were qualified 
to teach. Unfortunately, that was locked onto for political reasons to 
generate scare tactics, and unfortunately my colleagues have received 
many phone calls from people who have been misled and who misunderstand 
the amendment. But that was to the ends of certain individuals' 
political purposes. Those same people, unfortunately, because of scare 
tactics, have spent their money, taken their children out of school, 
and come here to lobby. I hope that is a good civics lesson, and that 
is certainly their right to do so. But that was never the amendment nor 
the language that was in this legislation.
  What went on here in the last 4 or 5 days has nothing to do with the 
language in this bill. It has to do with some other agenda of 
organizations that decided they were going to steam up a lot of parents 
and a lot of individuals who are genuinely deeply concerned about the 
education of their children, their right to have their children in 
private schools, and the right to teach their children at home. That 
right is honored by this committee, by this legislation, and, I 
believe, by every Member of this Congress. But somebody could not pass 
up the political opportunity to gin those people up and arouse them and 
have them spend their time, their money, and their resources beseeching 
the Congress on a problem that never existed.
  And if I understand the debate that has taken place here in the last 
few minutes, the solution to that problem now is even worse than the 
perceived problem they were talking about that they were going to cure. 
There were numerous opportunities to cure the perceived problem 
earlier. People chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity 
because they wanted the political advantage, they wanted the phone 
calls, they wanted the scare tactics, and they wanted the result they 
have now. The result will be that children in title I will continue to 
be taught by many teachers who do not have the ability nor the 
qualifications to teach those children. That is a tragic end to this 
story.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, in response to the question from the 
gentleman from Illinois, I want to add also that the Ford-Kildee 
amendment refers to all home schools, however they are classified by 
the States. The reference is to all home schools.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ford].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424, 
noes 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 31]

                               AYES--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--1

       
     Miller (CA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Andrews (TX)
     de Lugo (VI)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Gejdenson
     Green
     Hastings
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     McDermott
     Synar
     Washington
     Waters
     Wilson

                              {time}  1354

  Ms. SHEPHERD changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. de LUGO. Mr. Chairman, I missed the vote on the Ford-Kildee 
amendment earlier in the day as I was chairing a meeting on the nuclear 
problem in the Marshall Islands and got here a few seconds late. Had I 
been here I would have voted in support of the Ford-Kildee amendment.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 31 I was unavoidably 
detained.
  Had I been here I would have voted yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 103-426.


                amendments en bloc offered by mr. armey

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc by Mr. Armey:
       On page 218, line 14, insert ``public'' before ``schools'' 
     and strike ``under the jurisdiction of the agency''.
       On page 218, line 16, after ``assigned.'' insert the 
     following new sentence:
       ``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require 
     the certification or regulation of teachers in any private, 
     religious, or home school.''.
       On page 735, line 6, insert ``institutional'' after 
     ``nonprofit''.
       On page 737, line 13, insert ``institutional`` after 
     ``nonprofit''.
       On page 762, after line 8, insert the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC.   . GENERAL PROVISION REGARDING NON-RECIPIENT 
                   NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, 
     encourage, or authorized any federal control over any aspect 
     of any private, religious, or home school that does not 
     receive funds or does not participate in programs or services 
     under the Act.''.


        modification of amendments en bloc offered by mr. armey

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
en bloc be modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as modified by Mr. Armey:
       On page 735, line 6, insert ``institutional'' after 
     ``nonprofit''.
       On page 737, line 13, insert ``institutional'' after 
     ``nonprofit''.
       On page 762, line 9, insert the following new section and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly:

     ``SEC. 9508. GENERAL PROVISION REGARDING NON-RECIPIENT 
                   NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, 
     encourage, or authorize any federal control over any aspect 
     of any private, religious, or home school, whether or not a 
     home school is treated as a private school or home school 
     under state law. This section shall not be construed to bar 
     private, religious, or home schools from participation in 
     programs or services under the Act.''.

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey]?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendments en bloc, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc, as modified, by Armey:
       On page 218, line 14, insert ``public'' before ``schools'' 
     and strike ``under the jurisdiction of the agency''.
       On page 218, line 16, after ``assigned.'' insert the 
     following new sentence:
       ``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require 
     the certification or regulation of teachers in any private, 
     religious, or home school.''
       On page 735, line 6, insert ``institutional'' after 
     ``nonprofit''.
       On page 737, line 13, insert ``institutional'' after 
     ``nonprofit''.
       On page 762, line 9, insert the following new section and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly:

     ``SEC. 9508. GENERAL PROVISION REGARDING NON-RECIPIENT 
                   NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, 
     encourage, or authorize any federal control over any aspect 
     of any private, religious, or home school, whether or not a 
     home school is treated as a private school or home school 
     under State law. This section shall not be construed to bar 
     private, religious or home schools from participation in 
     programs or services under the Act.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation 
to the gentlemen from Michigan [Mr. Kildee and Mr. Ford], the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson], other members of the committee, and in fact to all the 
Members of this body for their patience with respect to this issue.
  The issue became an issue because there were people across this 
country who have sought refuge from the mandates to public education 
from the Federal Government by either enrolling their children in 
private schools or maintaining their children in a home school. These 
people have what we now can clearly all understand and agree is an 
extraordinary commitment to the preservation of their own freedom as 
parents and educators.
  The question was raised among these people across the country over, 
in particular, section 2124(e), which has just been deleted by an 
amendment which we passed, offered by the chairman, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ford], and over other possible intrusions against their 
freedom from the bill itself.
  It came to my attention, and I have worked with the attorneys for the 
home schoolers, I have worked with the attorneys for the National 
Association of Christian Schools, and I have worked with the attorneys 
from the Catholic schools to try to come up with, in particular, 
section 9508, which was just written in such a way as to accomplish a 
protection of the freedoms yet allow the voluntary, and I might say 
very generous, participation in many of these programs, especially by 
the Catholic schools, without fear of Government control over the 
affairs of the school.
  It has been a long and arduous task. It has tried the patience of all 
of us, but we believe now, with full confidence, that this language 
provides that protection to everybody considered. In particular, the 
expression we find, that whether or not a home school is treated as a 
private school or a home school under State law, protects all home 
schoolers, even those in the 17 States where home schooling is 
prescribed by State law and definition as private school.
  This sentence in the section that says, ``This section shall not be 
construed to bar private, religious, or home schools from participation 
in programs or services under the Act,'' protects the rights primarily 
of the Catholic schools to continue their generous participation on 
behalf of children across this Nation in these programs, without 
sacrificing the autonomy and control of their own programs to Federal 
mandate.
  I am confident that this language solves everybody's problem and 
gives them a reassurance that their freedoms are protected. There are 
many among us who would argue that, in fact, the language is not 
needed, that those protections are already granted by this bill or by 
other legislation. That may or may not be the case.
  The fact still remains that many people across the country, as we all 
know so well, have felt and do feel threatened and are confident that 
the passage of this amendment will assure that their freedoms will be 
enjoyed in the home rather than defended in the courts.
  Still, nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, let me assure everybody concerned, 
those who in fact are in their own home schools or their own private 
schools, those who are in this body, that I will seek to be on the 
conference that attempts this legislation, and I will cooperatively and 
willingly continue to work with everybody to make very certain that the 
final bill has language that will in fact provide everybody the 
guarantee that their freedoms will not be impinged upon by this 
legislation.
  This is an extraordinarily important thing. Clearly we have seen that 
the people who love this freedom for themselves and their family will 
rise to the defense of that freedom. We think we can resolve the issue 
with the passage of this amendment. They can feel secure in their homes 
this weekend and then beyond, and we will continue to work with 
everybody in the most cooperative fashion possible to make sure we have 
the most perfect language from the conference, should there be any 
remaining reservations about this language.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all have the same purpose and the same 
objective here. I am not convinced that this language will still not 
get us into a constitutional thicket and get us into court on those 
dollars that have been flowing to the private schools, the parochial 
schools, for a number of years under the decision of this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not convinced that the gentleman's language 
remedies what was defective in his original amendment. For that reason, 
I am not going to support the gentleman's amendment.
  I think we have had probably plenty of debate in debating the 
previous amendment, and I am not going to take any more time, but I 
will look forward to working with everyone to make sure that we have 
the proper language. I am not convinced we have it here in the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that I have a large number of 
people who have requested time to speak on this. In consideration for 
those who have asked, I must maintain my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage with the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] in a colloquy, if possible.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been working with the gentleman as he has tried 
to amend his amendment to meet problems he did not anticipate when he 
first started out with it. I know he has been working in good faith to 
try to get it to come as close to satisfying the private school 
interests that are now upset by the amendment as possible.
  I am looking now, Mr. Chairman, at section 432 of the General 
Education Provisions Act, which was passed in 1970, and does not come 
up for reauthorization. It is permanent law, unless somebody introduces 
legislation to change it.
  In this permanent law, Mr. Chairman, it says:

       Prohibition against Federal control of education. No 
     provision of any applicable program shall be construed to 
     authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the 
     United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or 
     control over curricula, program of instruction, 
     administration, or personnel of any educational institution, 
     school, or school system, or over the selection of library 
     resources, textbooks, or other printed or published 
     instructional materials by any educational institution or 
     school system, or to require the assignment of transportation 
     of students or teachers in order to overcome racial 
     imbalance.

  I know where the gentleman wants to come out, I believe, and we agree 
with him on where he would like to get. The problem that this revised 
amendment leaves us with is that it repeats, unfortunately redundantly, 
protections that are already in permanent law, but it does not repeat 
them all.
  The lawyers in this Chamber will appreciate the fact that if the 
gentleman is looking for a way to get himself into court, and we take 
action to reenact something, but we leave part of it out, that is a 
strong enough argument to get him into court.
  There are groups that do not like to see parochial schools get any of 
the benefits that they presently get from these programs. That is the 
reason the parochial schools are concerned about an amendment that 
could be construed to have changed long-standing law that has never 
successfully been challenged, 24 years now this year, 24 years in 
April, it was.
  This is the problem I have with this. I am not objecting to the 
gentleman making these changes. I want him to have a vote on his 
amendment. I hope we vote soon. I am, unfortunately, in a position 
where I have to play it safe and vote ``no,'' and hope if it does pass 
I will be able to straighten it out in a conference with the Senate.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the debate. My understanding, 
and if the gentleman would verify that, is that the issue of the 
personal education of the home schools, that is settled, is that 
correct?
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. That is correct.
  Mr. de la GARZA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, now what we 
have left in the discussion, technical as it may be, is on the private 
or parochial schools, is that correct?
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. That is correct, and the parochial schools in 
particular, not church-related private schools. They would not be 
affected.
  Mr. de la GARZA. So the parochial schools, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, is that identified solely as Catholic or Lutheran, 
Episcopal, and the other ones?
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Hebrew day school, 
any school that is related to a religion and has as part of its 
function the teaching of the tenets of that religion, Christian 
schools.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Christian schools. So the area that was concerned on 
home education or home schools, that has been corrected? That is 
satisfied, under the amendment adopted?
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. That is correct.
  Mr. de la GARZA. If the gentleman will yield further, this one could, 
in some way, endanger the assistance to the so-called parochial or 
private schools?
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. That is their belief, communicated to us.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman for making it clear, so we may 
be able to address the issue adequately.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield, I was under the impression, 
Mr. Chairman, that when he rose he wanted to engage me in a colloquy.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, that can be done very easily.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is it his intent that 
notwithstanding any language in his amendment that might be construed 
by anybody or the courts to the contrary, that he intends to ensure all 
of the protections that are in the permanent law in section 432, 
prohibition against Federal control of education, in the General 
Education Provisions Act?
  Mr. ARMEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my intent, of course, to do honor to 
those provisions. We see, as the chairman himself so aptly pointed out, 
that although my amendment may have a redundancy to that, it does not 
in fact belie any of the provisions of that bill, and there are some 
provisions of the bill that are not covered by my amendment.
  My response to the gentleman is that redundancy in defense of freedom 
is a virtue, and I do not mind committing that redundancy just for 
further assurance.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. I just wanted the gentleman to make clear on 
the record, so courts trying to interpret what we are doing here will 
understand that the gentleman recognizes that what he is doing is 
simply reenacting the already existing law, and he does not intend to 
change it.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield further, I do not intend to 
change the authority of section 432, as the chairman has just read.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished leader of the Republican Policy 
Committee.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, briefly, I support the so-called Armey 
amendment. I think it improves on the so-called Ford amendment, which I 
welcome, but the Ford amendment only talks about home schools, and 
there are private schools that are equally involved in this intrusive 
attempt or apparent attempt to require certification of them.
  Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that that was not the intention, but 
there is a well-known road paved with good intentions, and it is well 
to specify what the gentleman is talking about.
  The so-called Armey amendment does indeed do that, and specifies that 
home schools, even those home schools that are defined as private 
schools in 17 States, and private schools, need not be certified as 
public schools are.
  I am convinced that the parochial schools, the private schools, will 
not suffer any diminution in benefits that they receive under the 
existing law now.

                              {time}  1410

  So I wholeheartedly support the Armey amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], a member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  (Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, if there is anything that we have heard 
over the past week with the thousands of phone calls that all of us 
have received in our offices, it is that the American people want us to 
stay out of their education system. My wife and I, as the mother and 
father of two daughters in public schools, want our neighbors and 
community leaders to make decisions about our schools. We do not need 
Federal bureaucrats in Washington, DC making decisions that affect the 
education of our children.
  Now we have before us a 900-page bill that virtually no Member of 
this body has read. That is how these problems come to this body.
  The Armey amendment fixes one of those problems. But we ought to 
remember to take time as we are legislating to make sure that we know 
what we are doing, to make sure that we know what is in the legislation 
before we bring it to this floor.
  The Armey amendment is a good amendment. I believe it does protect 
parochial schools, and as one who spent 16 years in parochial schools, 
along with my 11 brothers and sisters, I am satisfied that parochial 
schools are well covered with this language.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I plan to vote for the amendment with the 
understanding that we will have the language corrected before it 
becomes law so that we do not have 6 million telephone calls instead of 
1 million, and because I believe we could get to that point. So I hope 
we will get everything corrected before anything becomes law.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, the colloquy that we just heard between the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and the chairman of the full committee 
indicates that the pending amendment is merely to reiterate what 
already is the law, and that the aspects of redundancy ought to be 
ignored even though the purported redundancy might create an enormous 
amount of mischief. And I want to cite why this mischief ought to 
caution us, despite the phone calls and the faxes that we are 
receiving, not to vote for this amendment.
  We have been advised by the parochial schools, by other private 
schools that this is a very mischievous amendment. It comes to us under 
a guise of misunderstanding, that there are no Federal regulations 
whatsoever that control the use of Federal funds under the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. It is not true.
  People have gone to court. This is a very contentious issue, and as a 
result of the decisions by the courts, there are carefully construed 
procedures by which private and parochial and other religious schools 
may expend Federal funds. Some of them are very complicated. They make 
no sense.
  For instance. a public school teacher may not go onto a private 
school premise in order to utilize Federal funds for the benefit of 
private children. Computers may be put into private schools, but they 
may not be utilized and the use may not be under the control of the 
private or parochial teacher. It must be under the control of the 
public school system. Under title 2 they can buy books and so forth, 
but they must be property of the public school system, and on and on. 
There is an abundance of procedural regulations that have been required 
because of litigation. And when the chairman say when a redundancy may 
appear to be innocent, what he is cautioning this body is if we change, 
even a minutiae, the wording of existing law, we are inviting 
litigation, and the parochial and private schools are concerned that we 
are changing the content of the provisions of existing law which have 
been carefully worked out over the 20-some-odd years that it has 
worked.

                              {time}  1420

  None of us want to see any prejudice whatsoever to the ability of 
private and parochial schools to benefit from the use of Federal funds 
for the particular targeted children But if we adopt this amendment, we 
are inviting chaos and further litigation.
  So I urge this House to vote down this amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  (Ms. DUNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am the watchdog for over 1,500 people who have called 
in to my office.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey 
amendment.
  While I strongly support public schools, and my five children have 
gone to public schools, and I went to public schools, I believe every 
parent ought to have the opportunity to send their children to public 
schools, parochial schools, private schools, or home school.
  What has happened here, and the body ought to recognize it, is that 
the American people were upset. Moms and dads who are concerned about 
what was going to happen to take away their right to educate their 
children called the Congress, and I think it is important that they 
know that by calling the Congress they have moved this body. They have 
made a difference. So their participation is helpful and they are to be 
congratulated.
  Let me just take a second to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Armey]. I have confidence that members of the committee will work 
together to resolve this problem. But the Armey amendment, when it 
comes up for a vote, is a good yes vote to send a message back to 
mothers and fathers and parents that they have the right to determine 
the education for their children.
  Education faces many important challenges. I firmly believe, however, 
that it is up to parents to determine what is best for their children. 
Parents must be the decisionmakers for their children's future, not the 
government. Parents, no governments, are the best arbiters about what 
is best for their kids.
  Many parents opt to send their children to nonpublic schools or to 
home school their children for a variety of reasons. Some send their 
children to nonpublic schools for religious reasons, cultural reasons, 
or because the alternative school offers opportunities that are not 
afforded by public schools.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to support all of our schools--public, private, 
religious, and home schools. There are probably as many ways to raise 
and teach children as their are children and parents. What I do know is 
that parents are uniquely positioned to make a better determination 
about what is best for their kids than the government.
  Mandatory certification of home school teachers and private school 
teachers will make it difficult if not impossible for these valuable 
alternatives to public school to continue to exist. The Armey amendment 
will make clear that the Federal Government is not going to be in the 
business of mandating certification of private, religious, or home 
schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members on both sides, in a bipartisan 
way to support this Armey amendment and reaffirm our commitment to 
preserving the autonomy parents should have in making critical 
education decisions for their kids.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that all of us here are trying to 
achieve the same goal. I think we all have good will on that.
  The language that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] and I 
offered in our amendment had been worked out very carefully with those 
who have been historically long involved in nonpublic education or 
religious education, the Catholic Conference, the Seventh-day 
Adventists. It was very carefully drafted.
  Mr fear is that we may unintentionally restrict the participation of 
those religious and private schools in many of the programs that we 
have enacted over many, many years, because language written here on 
the floor, with scratched-out and something inserted and a caret put 
here and a deletion and a stet put here, and it is pretty hard to 
determine really what we have.
  We are writing language that will affect the future of many schools 
in this country. So while I concur that we all are of good will here, 
good will alone will not guarantee that we will have the proper 
language.
  Now, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] and I worked very hard, 
worked with the various groups, with our own attorneys, here to get 
proper language, did not do this on the floor of the House, scratching 
out, putting carets and stets as were writing.
  I say that only because, and I wish that the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Armey] would listen, because I am talking to him primarily, and I 
want some response, I know we both have the same goal in mind. I think 
we would concede that, that we have the same goal in mind.
  But there are groups out there, and you know who they are, I say to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], there are groups out there who 
are ready to pounce on parochial schools, and this language, I fear, 
may give them an opportunity to drag those schools into court. That is 
my only fear. Maybe my fears are groundless.
  But when I look at an amendment that is scratched out, stet, take it 
back in, caret here, insert here, I really do not like to write law 
that way that affects so many schools.
  Now, I am sure in your own heart you are convinced this language is 
correct. I am not at all convinced yet. So I am not going to support 
it. Because I think this is an area of law in which we have to be most 
careful, because there are groups out there that would like to drag 
certain schools into court.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, let me say very quickly that I do appreciate the point 
just made by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], and that is why 
in fact we have sought counsel from and gotten an approval of support 
for our amendment from the American Association of Christian Schools, 
the Association of Christian Schools International, the National 
Association of Evangelicals, and those letters are here, and those will 
be submitted for the Record.
                                                    Association of


                              Christian Schools International,

                               Washington, DC., February 23, 1994.
     Re H.R. 6--Armey amendment.

     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The Association of Christian Schools 
     International (ACSI) is the largest association of Protestant 
     Christian Schools in the world. In the United States, we have 
     over 2,907 member schools, from preschool through college, 
     with 554,600 students. We join with the home schoolers in 
     urging you to recognize the basic rights of religious 
     schools--Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim--to operate 
     without federal intrusion. The ``assurance provision'' 
     [section 2124(e)] of H.R. 6, as operate without federal 
     intrusion. The ``assurance provision'' [section 2124(e)] of 
     H.R. 6, as reported out of Committee, threatens this right. 
     Combined with other provisions, it could be read to require 
     state regulation of certification of teachers in religious 
     and home schools.
       The Association of Christian Schools International 
     therefore urges support of Congressman Dick Armey's amendment 
     which deletes subsection 2124(e) of H.R. 6.
       The Armey amendment also adds a provision to make clear 
     that the Act does not intend to assert federal control over 
     regulation of private, religious, or home schools that do not 
     receive funds under the Act. Many such schools do have 
     students who receive benefits and participate in programs and 
     services under the Act. The amendment affirms that such 
     schools may continue to participate cooperatively without 
     added regulation. Benefits are ordinarily delivered through 
     government employees and the schools, as such, do not receive 
     funds under the Act.
       While religious and home schools seek freedom from federal 
     intrusion as a Constitutional right, they are proud to have 
     contributed richly to the heritage of the Nation. They also 
     have private programs of certification and accreditation and 
     are by no means unaccountable. Many have been doing an 
     excellent job in the inner-cities and other challenging 
     circumstances. We plead that the Congress will allow them to 
     continue without federal intervention the successful job they 
     have been doing.
           Respectfully yours,
                                            John C. Holmes, Ed.D.,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____



                                      Family Research Council,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 1994.
       Dear Member of Congress: Please support the ``Home School/
     Private Education Amendment'' to H.R. 6, to be offered by 
     Congressman Dick Armey and accept no alternative.
       The Armey amendment is needed because of the provision 
     added at the last minute to H.R. 6 by Congressman George 
     Miller which can be interpreted to force private, religious 
     and home schools to hire only certified teachers. This could 
     eventually eliminate 99 percent of home schoolers in America 
     and deal a grievous blow to private schools. Mr. Miller's 
     amendment is nothing short of a power grab by the federal 
     government to gain control over private schools and home 
     schools.
       Mr. Armey's amendment essentially states the following:
       Federal involvement of control over private schools, home 
     schools, and/or religious schools is expressly prohibited.
       No federal funds shall be used for monitoring, regulating 
     or supervising private schools, home schools, and/or 
     religious schools.
       The use of the term ``school'' anywhere in H.R. 6 shall 
     mean public school and shall not include private schools, 
     home schools, and/or religious schools.
       The issues stressed above are critical to our constituency. 
     Please support the amendment and accept no compromises or 
     alternatives to Mr. Armey's language.
       In addition to Mr. Armey's amendment, we ask your support 
     for amendments to be offered by Mr. Goodling and Mr. Boehner. 
     Mr. Goodling's amendment will prevent federally funded 
     school-based health clinics from providing family planning or 
     reproductive health services. Mr. Boehner will offer an 
     amendment to permit school choice.
       The Family Research Council strongly opposes H.R. 6 and ask 
     that you vote against the bill but would appreciate your 
     support of the above mentioned amendments during the 
     deliberation of the bill.
           Sincerely,
     Gary L. Bauer,
       President.
     Megham R. Flaherty,
       Deputy Director, Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                 Traditional Values Coalition,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 1994.
       Dear Member of Congress: Soon the House will consider H.R. 
     6, the Elementary & Secondary Schools Act. Traditional Values 
     Coalition has many problems with this legislation, including 
     the Miller Amendment which requires certification for 
     teachers of home and private schools.
       Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) is pleased to support 
     the Armey Amendment to H.R. 6 which exempts all non-public 
     schools from the Miller Amendment.
       The very reason for home and private education is to 
     provide top quality instruction within the framework of the 
     values and beliefs of the children being taught. More 
     government regulation of these non-profit educational 
     institutions is unnecessary and infringes on the freedom of 
     parents to teach their children as they wish. Under H.R. 6, 
     as it now reads, home schooling parents must be certified 
     teachers, in every grade level and every subject in which 
     they plan to teach. Not only would this eliminate all home 
     schooling as we know it, but it would even preclude 
     professional teachers who are currently certified from home 
     schooling their own children.
       Traditional Values Coalition applauds the efforts of 
     Congressman Dick Armey to protect the autonomy of home 
     schools and private schools from increased government 
     intervention and encourage all Members to support the Armey 
     Amendment to H.R. 6.
       Traditional Values Coalition considers support for the 
     Armey Amendment a key pro-family vote. As as result, your 
     position will be reported to TVC's 31,000 member churches, 
     many of which are located in your district.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Louis P. Sheldon,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the strongest support of 
the Armey amendment to H.R. 6, the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act.
  As I believe every member of this House knows by now, the Miller 
amendment, as it came out of committee, would affect the right of 
parents and children around this country to choose private, religious 
or home schooling. Parents who choose these options, and I have many in 
my district, have seen outstanding results from these nonpublic 
schools.
  While virtually every member of this House is supportive of the 
public school system, we should not turn this support into an attempt 
to coerce parents who have chosen private, religious or home schooling 
out of these choices. It is a fundamental right for parents to choose 
the education for their children that best suits their family's needs.
  Whether or not the actions we take in Congress are intended to affect 
these schools, we must be aware that they can be interpreted to do so. 
That is exactly why so many people were alarmed by the teacher 
certification language that was in this bill as it emerged from 
committee.
  That is also why the Armey amendment is the best way to improve this 
bill. The Armey amendment makes explicit what I believe is the 
intention of the vast majority of this House--that the Federal 
Government not begin telling private educational institutions how to do 
their job.
  Private schools have shown their effectiveness in providing education 
to millions of American children. The flexibility they demonstrate is 
to be admired. If we do not adopt the Armey amendment, the possibility 
exists that provisions similar to the Miller amendment may be found in 
this 900 page bill and be interpreted so as to interfere with the 
operations of our private schools.
  Not only would that have a negative impact on elementary and 
secondary education, but it would also open the bill to interpretations 
contrary to what the majority in Congress intends. For those who claim 
that the Armey amendment will be redundant, I would say that redundancy 
in the pursuit of clarity can be a virtue. And as the Courts grow 
evermore aggressive in reinterpreting the laws we write, clarity 
becomes more of a necessity.
  I stand here today as someone who also supports public education. My 
wife is a former public school teacher, and I have one child in the 
public schools. But I also believe that we need to preserve the rights 
of parents to choose private, religious, or home schools. If you share 
that belief, I urge you to vote for the clearest statement of that 
principle--the Armey amendment. I wish to congratulate the Dobson Radio 
station, Christian Broadcasting Network, Concerned Women of America and 
others who made the public aware of this important issue.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Armey amendment to exempt all 
nonpublic school teachers from the certification requirement included 
in H.R. 6, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  Congress is at it again--placing more Federal mandates on schools 
which do not even receive Federal funding. One of the major problems 
faced by our public schools is meeting the multitude of unfunded 
mandates imposed on them by the Government. Now we want to do to our 
private and home schools what we have done to the public schools.
  Teacher certification, besides creating a bureaucratic nightmare, 
tests the skills of parents, not students. If the Armey amendment 
fails, 99 percent of home schoolers may not be able to teach their own 
children. Because this provision requires that secondary teachers are 
certified in every subject they teach, even certified parents would not 
be allowed to teach their own children in a variety of subjects.
  The Federal Government must reverse this trend of intruding on local 
school districts, and learn that the bureaucrats in Washington, DC do 
not help our children learn how to read and write. I encourage all of 
my colleagues to join me in supporting the Armey amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Armey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to very quickly tell where we come from. We come 
from last weekend where there was a section of this bill that could be 
interpreted to require certification for home schoolers. Thanks to the 
outcry of the country and all of the people calling in, we have now 
seen the distinguished chairman of the committee of jurisdiction offer 
an amendment that passed, with the exception of one vote, that struck 
the entire section.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] now wants to offer an amendment 
that makes explicit the rights of home schoolers and private schoolers.
  Now, there can be a gentleman's disagreement about the technical 
nature of the amendment, and I would stipulate that is what the 
conference committee is all about is to work out some of those 
technical amendments.
  If you are for the principle of allowing home schoolers and their 
parents, to be taught at home, and private schools and parochial 
schools, vote for the Armey amendment. If we have got technical 
problems, we can work those problems out in the conference committee, 
and we should commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] for offering 
this amendment. When he started the flight, it was not clear that we 
were going to be all as supportive as we are now.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, are we going to be going back and forth in 
recognition?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we will be going back and forth. But the gentleman 
from Texas has more time remaining, and so we were going to take a few 
speakers on that side.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, today, with over 3,000 of my constituents 
who have called on this issue since last Friday, I rise in strong 
support of the Armey amendment to H.R. 6. These lists represent only 
calls, and each sheet contains 8 to 10 calls; the single largest 
outpouring on any issue I have received since I came to Congress in 
1991. In all these calls, not a single person expressed support for 
imposing teacher certification on home or private schools. The Armey 
amendment will protect, fully, private, religious, and home schools 
from Federal interference. Not one State in this country requires that 
home schoolers be certified, yet unless we pass the Armey amendment 
there is a real danger that Congress will tell families, State 
governments, and local school districts that it knows better how to 
manage their affairs. I urge my colleagues to support the Armey 
amendment to protect home school, private schools and parochial schools 
from the Federal Government's attempt to take away their economy.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think all of us would agree the number of calls we have received is 
a great tribute to the democracy we have in this country. I look upon 
those calls as an opportunity to listen to people. I think this has 
been a great outpouring of democracy, and I think we all welcome that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Slattery].
  Mr. SLATTERY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Kildee, Chairman Ford, the ranking minority member, Mr. Armey, for 
bringing this matter to our attention. I am very pleased that we have 
reconciled this question of whether the Federal Government was going to 
get into the business of attempting to certify teachers in private and 
parochial schools, and home schooling across the country. I hope 
everybody across America who is concerned with this issue should note 
the vote, because there was only one person in this body who was 
against the amendment, which I hope makes one point crystal-clear. That 
is that no one, perhaps with the exception of one Member of this body, 
had any intention of the Federal Government reaching out and trying to 
certify teachers in home schooling operations and in private schools in 
this country. I want that point clearly understood.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased also that we are dealing with a modified 
Armey amendment. This is not the amendment that we were dealing with 
earlier today. I commend the gentleman from Texas for straightening it 
up. It appears to me that some additional improvement will be needed as 
we move forward in the process.
  With that in mind, I have no big problem with the Armey amendment. 
But this morning's Armey amendment was apparently opposed by the 
Catholic Conference, so I was advised. Now I am told that there is some 
question as to whether the Catholic Conference, which happens to be 
involved in the operation of many schools in this country, is sort of 
neutral on the gentleman's amendment. Whatever concern they have I am 
confident can be addressed as we move forward in the process.
  My friends, the bottom line is this: No one in the House of 
Representatives, with the possible exception of one person, apparently 
had any desire to get the Federal Government into the business of 
certifying teachers in private schools, parochial schools, or home 
schooling operations in this country.
  I happen to appreciate the contact we have all received from our 
constituents across the country. I appreciate the work of the gentleman 
from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, and ranking minority 
members also for helping us to clarify this issue and put to rest the 
concern that many Americans had about this issue.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I 
stand in strong support of the Armey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Armey amendment 
to H.R. 6. Millions of American children are schooled at home by 
parents who are deeply committed to their education, and I believe it 
is absolutely essential that Congress respect these parents' right to 
do so.
  The Armey amendment will ensure that the Federal Government does not 
interfere with private, religious, or home schools that do not choose 
to accept Federal assistance. It also ensures that private and 
religious schools that do choose to participate in Federal programs may 
continue doing so.
  Private, religious, and home schooling provides important 
alternatives for American families. The Armey amendment ensures that 
our families continue to have the choices they need to meet their 
children's educational needs, and I urge its support.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I 
would like to speak in strong support of the Armey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as we all know from the thousands of phone calls that 
have monopolized the Capitol switchboard, H.R. 6 contains a provision 
that could be interpreted in such a way that parents, teaching their 
children at home, would have to be certified in every academic subject 
they teach.
  This mess all began when an amendment was added to require the 
certification of all teachers in the academic subjects they are 
assigned to teach. The amendment was meant to disallow alternative 
certification. Alternative certification is based on the principle that 
certification, in and of itself, is not the best indication of an 
individual's ability to teach. Without alternative certification, even 
the president of Duke Power Co., who is probably the expert in the 
Nation on nuclear engineering, would not be permitted to teach even 
general science unless he first goes back to college for a teaching 
degree. This is ludicrous.
  In the process of outlawing alternative certification, home-schoolers 
were inadvertently harmed and that is why we are debating the Armey 
amendment. This amendment is absolutely necessary. The Ford/Kildee 
amendment may not go far enough in protecting the rights of parents to 
educate their children and does not protect private and religious 
schools.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Armey amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a member of the committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the home school-private 
school freedom amendment.
  As I listen to the debate on H.R. 6 I hear much debate about how to 
make the schools better, most of that information coming from the 
people and the institutions running today's educational system.
  If we were really interested in improving our schools we should be 
listening and talking to those who have opted out of the current 
educational system. Let's talk to the 51 percent of the people in 
Minnesota who said that if they could move their children at no cost, 
they would opt out of the public school system.
  If we were really interested in improving our schools we wouldn't be 
stifling creativity and new learning approaches, we would be 
encouraging them. Contrary to what our committee believes, one size 
does not fit all. One of the most effective teachers that I have met in 
the last 2 years is a former Marine sergeant, who is not certified. He 
takes kids who have failed in the traditional school system, surrounds 
them with the latest in technology and strict discipline. In 7 weeks 
they progress the equivalent of 2 years of traditional learning in 
reading, writing, and math.

  Education needs creativity, it needs experimentation, it needs the 
spirit of free enterprise, and it needs a healthy dose of parental, 
community, and individual accountability and involvement. It does not 
need the Federal Government coming in propping up certain elements 
which preserve the status quo.
  Isn't it interesting that the Federal Government steps in to prop up 
old systems as people at the local level are opting out and 
experimenting. The Federal Government is about 20 years behind in the 
educational reform effort. Let us not lock the rest of the country into 
this old paradigm, and let's not permit the Government to take one more 
step in taking over the parenting of our children.
  The Armey amendment protects the rights of a core group of this 
country, home schoolers, private and religious schools. People making a 
valuable contribution to education in this country.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the original letter from the Catholic conference went 
through an elaborate process. They are very careful. They have their 
own attorneys poring over the language. To my understanding, they have 
had no opportunity to pore over the new language of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey]. So I would not characterize them as neutral; I would 
say they have just not had a chance to study the language yet.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Mrs. Unsoeld].
  Mrs. UNSOELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope to address my remarks to the gentleman 
from Texas's amendment because it appears that the gentleman from 
Texas, although we would like to assume we do have the same objective, 
it appears that the gentleman from Texas is unwilling to accept the 
good intentions of the Education Committee pertaining to home schools 
by the amendment that has just been adopted by this entire body, 
overwhelmingly supported by members of the committee. It appears that 
the gentleman from Texas is scrambling for an Armey amendment. Having 
triggered phone banks all over the country, it appears that the 
gentleman cannot accept the goodwill of the committee that home school 
was never intended to be included.
  I watch--not only has there been an amendment, there has been an 
amendment to the amendment and an amendment to the amendment to the 
amendment, scrabbled on the floor, and I watched attorneys on the other 
side hovering--and perhaps the amendment is still in the process----
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe the gentlewoman from 
Washington should be advised by the Chair that she is bordering on a 
breach of collegiality by assaults on my motives. I do not think that 
is appropriate as an exchange for floor debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point is heard.
  The gentlewoman will proceed.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas has claimed the 
endorsement of a number of organizations. However, I would submit to 
the chairman that those organizations and their attorneys have not had 
the opportunity to study the language that has been drafted and 
redrafted on the floor here today. As was pointed out by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii, when we tinker with extremely complicated 
matters that have been court-tested and we begin to pluck away at them 
in a setting of haste, we often err. And I would submit to you, Mr. 
Chairman, that the gentleman from Texas would be well served by 
recognizing the value of the Ford amendment, the Ford-Kildee amendment 
that was adopted, and saying let us now proceed with the bill and not 
try to make further amendments here on the floor, drafting as we move 
forward.

                             {time}   1440

  I would like to point out that home schooling in the State of 
Washington was subjected to considerable effort in 1985 to come up with 
standards, a procedure, that was totally acceptable to home school 
people and totally acceptable to the State. That is the kind of 
procedure that we should have, and we should not be tinkering with this 
further on the floor here.
  Mr. Chairman, I have risen in opposition to the Armey amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I also thank the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Mrs. Unsoeld] for her kind remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have already amended the bill by taking out the 
language which caused significant problems. Now in this day and age of 
increasing Federal intrusion and encroachment into many other aspects 
of our lives we have a followup amendment which was to restate and 
reaffirm the right of Americans to be protected in their rights to 
educate their children at home or in private or parochial schools. It 
has been clarified by dialogue on this floor and by speaker after 
speaker that there is no intent to undercut any previously existing 
protections in the law. Yet this is an opportunity for the House of 
Representatives to reaffirm, in the context of the existing question, 
whether we have an absolute commitment to protecting the rights of our 
home-schoolers and those who educate their children in parochial and 
private schools to be free from Government management and intervention.
  Mr. Chairman, a good vote on this amendment is a yes vote.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].
  (Mr. CALVERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I attended public schools throughout 
elementary and high school.
  I care deeply about our public schools, and I strongly support some 
of the provision of H.R. 6.
  But, we should not pass this legislation to help public schools, if 
by doing so, we will violate the rights of those who wish to attend 
private or home schools.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a fundamental right of Americans to choose the 
type of education they want for themselves or their children--and we in 
this Congress have a sacred duty to protect this right.
  Our public schools are among the finest in the world--but, they have 
no monopoly on educational wisdom.
  Abraham Lincoln was a home schooler.
  John Kennedy attended private schools.
  So does Chelsea Clinton.
  Millions and millions of prominent and not-so-prominent Americans are 
being educated today at no cost to the taxpayers by parents who choose 
alternatives to the public schools.
  We ought to be doing everything we can to support these parents--not 
interfering with them.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Armey amendment to H.R. 6.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6, the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This 
legislation will dramatically increase Federal control over education 
and stifle any attempts by local communities to achieve real education 
reform.
  As recent international comparisons illustrate, Americans are falling 
far behind the rest of the world in education. In a 1982 report 
published in Public Interest on how American students compared with 
those in other nations,

       The results for the U.S. were these: Out of nineteen tests, 
     we were never ranked first or second; we came in dead last 
     three times, and, if comparisons are limited to other 
     developed nations only, the U.S. ranked at the bottom seven 
     times.

  And things are getting worse. Indeed, the International Association 
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement found that ``there is 
evidence of a sizable drop in level of achievement (in the United 
States).'' With this in mind, there is no disagreement that America's 
schools are in desperate need of reform.
  Real reform, however, will not be possible with the passage of H.R. 
6. This ill-conceived bill is a heavy-handed attempt by liberals to 
give the Federal Government the authority to micromanage every single 
aspect of our education system. It relies heavily on the Federal 
bureaucracy by having the Department of Education dictate to every 
school in America--public or private--a rigid set of requirements and 
standards to be adhered to. Should this legislation pass, the Federal 
bureaucrats will ultimately have the power to control a school's 
learning standards and even their curriculum. All this despite the fact 
that a Federal presence in education has done nothing but hinder public 
education. Indeed, since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was 
originally passed in 1965, the Federal Government has precipitated a 
sharp decline in education achievement among our Nation's 
schoolchildren.
  The public schools are already overburdened with unfunded mandates, 
unnecessary regulations, too much paperwork, and a Federal Government 
resistant to innovative reform. With H.R. 6, money that could be spent 
on academic basics will now be spent on hiring more administrators to 
monitor and enforce the mindboggling set of new regulations imposed by 
this legislation.
  The fact remains that education reform is best made at the local 
level. That is because education depends on committed communities and 
teachers who are determined to see real improvement in our education 
system. Additionally, a successful education system depends on parents 
who are determined to participate in the education process as well as 
students who are enthusiastic about learning. H.R. 6 does nothing to 
foster these proven approaches to improving education.
  If America is to excel in education, we will need to: Return 
discipline to the classroom; establish a core curriculum that 
emphasizes science, math, history, geography, and English; give kids 
more homework; remove bad teachers and reward good ones; and allow 
alternative teacher certification for those who have particular 
expertise.

  But we will not be able to implement these or other policies as long 
as the Federal Government, and not the parents and local communities, 
retain so much control over education. That is the key, transferring 
power from the bureaucracy to the parents and local school districts, 
where it belongs. This means giving parents--especially poor parents--a 
choice as to where they can send their kids. Such a voucher program 
would create competition between schools and improve education across 
the board. Choice in education is the linchpin to education reform. Yet 
H.R. 6 does not permit local school districts to even experiment with 
either public or private school choice programs.
  Moreover, I am particularly concerned about a provision in this 
legislation that imposes State certification requirements on teachers 
and parents in private and home schools whether or not they receive 
Federal or State funds. This is an intrusive mandate that would 
threaten private schools and effectively end home schooling as an 
option currently exercised by thousands of American families.
  Having said this, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition of 
H.R. 6 as it does not provide local school districts with the ability 
to enact radical reforms aimed at providing America's students with the 
quality schooling they so desperately need and deserve.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Armey amendment and the future of home schools and private schools in 
this country.
  It's important that we clarify the language in this bill so that the 
Federal Government cannot tighten its grip in its quest for control.
  You know, during the last week I have received over 1,000 phone calls 
in support of the Armey amendment, and none against it. I would like to 
commend the citizens who took the time to call in and raise awareness 
of this important issue.
  We must protect our children's education and parents' God-given 
rights here in America.
  Let's ensure the rightful independence of home schools and private 
schools by passing the Armey amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey 
amendment.
  The Federal Government has done enough damage to public education. It 
really should keep the big old Federal, bureaucratic nose out of 
private schools and particularly home schools.
  Parents who care enough to pay the extra expense of private schools 
and parents who care enough to invest their time and efforts and 
resources to provide home schooling, care too much to let their 
children get a shoddy education.
  They don't need the Federal Government looking over their shoulders, 
second guessing them with any more rules and regulations.
  Regulations are already in place on the State and local level for 
private schools and home schools.
  State and local school boards are perfectly capable of providing any 
safeguards that are needed without any more guidance from this puzzle 
palace on the Potomac.
  The Ford amendment may help this situation but it doesn't resolve the 
problem. We still need the Armey amendment for clarification--to make 
it crystal clear that private schools that don't receive Federal funds 
and home schools are protected from unnecessary Federal regulations.
  Two of my daughters educate their children at home. I have seen the 
quality of education they receive and it surpasses anything that my 
other grandchildren in public school receive.
  The Federal Government needs to keep its hands off.
  The only way to guarantee protection of private, religious, and home 
school is the Armey amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me state at this time that, as my colleagues know, 
there are good-willed people on both sides of the aisle debating 
language, not really debating philosophy, here. We are debating 
language, and we are debating it only because I am very cautious in 
putting into law language that might enable certain groups to drag 
certain schools into court. That is my only concern.
  So, Mr. Chairman, many of us are going to sing in the same song. 
Maybe we have some concern as to the text. But I will have a vote on 
this, and if Mr. Armey's amendment prevails, it is really a 
modification of our 9508 with some other things. I will work with him 
in the conference to make sure that all the groups involved, and all 
attorneys, make sure that the language is exact. That is my only 
concern.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think we have any really deep philosophical 
differences in this area. We will probably have some other 
philosophical differences in other areas, but in this area I think we 
are trying to achieve the same purpose. We do not want the long arm of 
the Federal Government to be reaching into home schools. We do not want 
the long arm of the Federal Government reaching into the private or 
parochial schools. In any case the Federal Government really should be 
a helping hand to those who choose to seek the help.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ford] for his kind remarks, and I, too, look forward to working with 
him. I do not share his concern about the language, but we will have an 
open mind to it, and we will consider any questions that are raised in 
conference and work with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Armey amendment to 
H.R. 6. This amendment represents an attempt to correct a drafting 
error in the bill which could have inadvertently required teacher 
certification of private, parochial, and home school teachers. I 
believe Congressman George Miller when he says that it was his 
intention to only require teacher certification of public school 
teachers, however, clearly a correction in the bill is necessary.
  I have received hundreds of calls from parents who have opted to 
teach their children at home, because of concerns they have regarding 
the quality of public schools or subject matter taught at public 
schools. Home schoolers and many private and parochial schools receive 
no Federal funding. The Federal Government has no basis for regulating 
these parent-educators and schools. Requiring that home schoolers be 
certified in every subject that they teach would effectively eliminate 
the ability of parents to teach their students at home. During the 
Education and Labor Committee consideration of H.R. 6, Congressman 
Armey offered an amendment which I supported which simply stated that 
nothing in this act would require or encourage regulation of private, 
religious, or home schools. Although we were not aware of the drafting 
error in the Miller amendment at the time, adoption of this amendment 
would have provided the necessary exemption for private schools and 
home schools. Unfortunately this amendment was defeated on a party-line 
vote.
  In addition, I am pleased that the Miller amendment in its entirety 
has been eliminated. While it is especially unfair to regulate schools 
which do not receive any funding under this act, I don't believe that 
the Federal Government has any role in teacher certification. All 50 
States already require public school teachers to be certified. Any 
additional certification requirements are best left to States and 
localities to decide upon.
  Mr. Chairman, I am supporting the Armey amendment because I believe 
that he provides the most protection for home-schoolers. Unlike the 
Ford amendment, the Armey amendment clarifies in the law that home 
schools in the 17 States, including my State of Illinois, where home 
schools are defined as ``private schools'' are not subject to 
regulation. It has recently come to my attention, however, that some 
have raised concerns that the Armey amendment could result in 
regulation of private schools which do receive funding under the act. I 
would be concerned if this is the case, and would hope that this could 
be addressed in conference.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, today's vote on the Armey amendment will 
determine the extent to which the U.S. Congress becomes involved in 
controlling all nonpublic schools, including Roman Catholic, 
Protestant, Jewish, and Moslem parochial schools, nonprofit secular 
schools, and home schools in 17 States.
  I was pleased to support the Ford amendment that struck the most 
offensive language wherein a State would have required the 
certification of all teachers, including home schoolers, in subject 
areas. I was also pleased that the gentleman from Michigan accepted by 
definition of his amendment in our colloquy that home school means 
whether or not a home school is treated as a private school or home 
school under State law. It solved most of the problems that are of 
great concern to the hundreds of constituents that have contacted my 
office.
  The problem remains, however, in the definition of what is a school. 
In 17 States, including my home State of Illinois, a home school is 
defined as a private school. The Armey amendment takes the Ford 
amendment one step further in that it codifies our colloquy into law.
  Mr. Chairman, we are witnessing something extraordinary taking place 
in the U.S. Congress. All but one Member of Congress, within the past 
hour, have voted to recognize that home educators and private schools--
Roman Catholic, Protestant, Moslem, Jewish, nondenominational, and 
secular--have intrinsic value. Americans today are looking for quality 
in education. The right to chose the form of education for one's 
children and be free of Government interference is at the core of our 
liberties in this Nation. Many of Members of Congress have gone on 
record to praise the efforts of home schools and private schools. When 
inappropriate language showed up in the original draft of the bill, 
tens of thousands of people called and jammed the lines in our office. 
These were Roman Catholic Protestants, many home-schoolers, and public 
school teachers, calling our office and saying with one voice one 
thing: It is not the province of the Federal Government to become 
involved in any manner whatsoever in controlling private and home 
schools.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I have long believed that education is 
handled best at the local level with the support of parents and the 
community. States, parents, and the local community know what is best 
for their students. Repeatedly, this body has considered legislation 
which attempts to extend the Federal control of education, and today we 
are debating legislation that is extending that authority to private, 
parochial, and home schools.
  Requiring certification of the teachers of those schools infringes 
upon the autonomy of their institutions. Education is constitutionally 
reserved to the States and is not an area within Federal jurisdiction. 
We have no right to mandate that States require the certification of 
schools not within the public system. States have recognized that fact 
and not one State requires that home school teachers be certified.
  While it may not have been the committee's intention to include home-
schoolers in the certification requirements, it is necessary that the 
language contained in the Armey amendment be adopted so that it will be 
made very clear that the Federal Government will not intervene in, or 
have control over private, parochial, and home schools. Their 
independence must be preserved and it is incumbent upon my colleagues 
to support the Armey amendment and guarantee that the long arm of the 
Federal Government will not reach into the non-public school systems.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Armey amendment to clarify the 
intentions of this body.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Armey amendment. This amendment makes explicit, has language which 
makes explicit, what some may feel is implicit in the amendment on 
which we previously voted. The hundreds of thousands of constituents 
who called our offices demand explicit language that will prevent the 
Federal Government from ever reaching into private schools and home 
schools to wreak on them the damage that it has done to education in 
the public schools.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, in the Constitution, which I read, 
I can find no justification for Federal Government meddling, even in 
public schools.
  Please, Mr. Chairman, let us vote for the Armey amendment to make 
sure that the damage the Federal Government does to education is not 
pushed down into private schools and home schools.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].
  (Mr. BAKER of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I was heartened by the remarks 
of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, when 
he said that we are all trying to struggle to find language that is 
acceptable to put off those confrontations that inherently occurred 
because of language inserted in the act. Most of us did not know that 
language was going into the act, and the author of the language said he 
had no intention of doing what most people out in the real world felt 
we were doing, and that is intruding on home schools and private 
education.
  Let us look at the Armey language. Let us not debate the notion of 
whether the Federal Government belongs in the school business; let us 
look at the language:

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, 
     encourage or authorize any Federal control over any aspect of 
     private, religious, or home school.

  This is a restatement of current law. That is section 432. People 
say, well, that will get you into a lawsuit. We are adding 900 pages, 
including the Ford amendment, that will get us into a lawsuit, too, if 
that is somebody's intention, but this language will not. This makes 
reference to the colloquy between the chairman, the gentleman from 
Michigan, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo]. I refer to 
this line: ``Whether or not a home school is treated as a private 
school or home school under State law.''

  We need that definition that excludes them from the act, and it was 
needed in the Ford amendment. This is not going to get us into court. 
This is a restatement of what a home school is.
  Lastly, in the Armey amendment we see this:

       This section shall not be construed to bar private, 
     religious, or home schools from participation in programs or 
     services under this Act.

  Somebody says that sets up two categories, one that receives money 
and one that does not. That is not what this language does. It says you 
cannot bar someone just because they are excluded from Government 
regulation as in the current code, section 432. We need this language 
to take it to conference. The author has agreed to work with the 
Catholic School Conference, the home-schoolers, the private education 
folks, the Christian school folks, and the Democrat majority to make 
sure the final language is perfect and acceptable to everyone.
  The author has done a good job of crafting this language. We need it 
in the conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to please read the language and vote 
``yes.'' I support the Armey language, and I thank the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey] for yielding me this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to announce that the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey] has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee] has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kansas made the point that the 
entire House, save one, had supported the Ford-Kildee amendment, seeing 
the merit of the argument about the home school issue. I believe that.
  I also believe that my colleagues heard their telephones ringing. So 
we may be reinforcing what we have already done, and if we are, so be 
it.
  The object of the Armey amendment is worthy of reinforcement. When we 
go to conference, there should be no disagreement about what is 
intended. Once started, Federal intrusion and regulation are like 
toothpaste out of the tube, they cannot go back. We have all seen this 
and know it to be true.
  For this reason, I believe this is a real issue worthy of a real 
solution, and that solution is the Armey amendment. Home schools, 
parochial schools, and private schools are well regulated on the State 
level.
  We need to make it exceedingly clear that the Federal Government will 
not put its heavy hand where it does not belong.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Armey amendment 
to H.R. 6. Some of my colleagues have said that this amendment is an 
unnecessary solution to an unnecessary problem. I completely disagree.
  My staff and I have answered many phone calls from worried and 
concerned parents in the eighth district of Missouri about H.R. 6. 
These parents have made individual, reasoned choices about the 
education of their children and genuinely fear Federal Government 
intrusion into their decision.
  One lady, in particular, told me how her son has severe learning 
disabilities. In the public school, he wasn't doing well. She decided 
to home school him and now her son is achieving far beyond what was 
expected. This is not a condemnation of public schools--in fact all 
four of my daughters have attended public schools. Rather, it is an 
acknowledgement that public schools aren't the answer for everyone.
  Once started, Federal intrusion and regulation is like toothpaste out 
of the tube--you can't go back. We have all seen this and know it to be 
true. For this reason, I believe this is a real issue worthy of a real 
solution. That solution is the Armey amendment. Home schools, parochial 
schools, and private schools are well-regulated on the State level. We 
need to make it exceedingly clear that the Federal Government will not 
put its heavy hand where it does not belong.
  The Capitol switchboard has been jammed with calls from people who 
are tired of a Federal Government that just doesn't get it--these phone 
calls are a slap on the hand for a Federal Government always reaching 
for more control. Listen to those calls and support the Armey 
amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the newest Member of 
our body, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Armey] and I rise to support his amendment. I'm perhaps uniquely 
qualified to speak on this issue since, I believe, I'm the only member 
of this Chamber who was home schooled--not by choice, but because of a 
childhood illness. I seem to have survived since I received a Ph.D. in 
nuclear physics from the University of California at Berkeley and also 
ended up in elective office. But, in addition to that, I served as a 
teacher for 22 years.
  I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of education, a 
strong supporter of good schools, and a strong supporter of teacher 
certification. However, I'm an even stronger supporter of not having 
the Federal Government intrude into the area of private schools and 
home schools. And I arise with some experience in this because my 
constituents in Michigan have experienced not only attempts at 
regulation, but also harassment from the State Department of Education 
in the past. This was eventually resolved when one of the individuals 
from my area ended up in the supreme court of the State of Michigan, 
which ruled against the Michigan Department of Education for their 
attempts to overregulate home schools.
  I believe it is essential to adopt the Armey amendment. The Ford 
amendment I appreciate. It clarified the intent. The Armey amendment 
makes it ironclad. We have no intent to intrude upon or regulate the 
activities of home schools or private nonprofit schools through the 
action of the Federal Government. It is extremely important for us to 
go on record and make it crystal clear that we have no intent to 
regulate them. For that reason, I support the Armey amendment and ask 
my colleagues to support it also.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time at this 
point. I have no Members asking for time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] for the introduction of this amendment 
to begin with, and second, and perhaps more importantly, I want to 
commend all those people from around this country who have communicated 
to the Members of this body.
  The fact of the matter is that it is evident that the people are 
interested, they are concerned, and they are registering very properly 
their concerns. Home schooling is one of those affected areas, and in 
my home State of Illinois, we are 1 of the 17 States where home schools 
are classified as private schools, and we in Illinois, most assuredly--
and I am confident this applies to all the other States--do not want 
Federal interference. The fact of the matter is that when we have a 
piece of legislation like this before us today, inevitably there is 
going to be escalating interference in this most precious area where 
parents feel most profoundly about the welfare of their children and 
guaranteeing that we inculcate the proper values.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is in order. I urge my colleagues to 
support it wholeheartedly.
  Mr. Chairman, as I was leaving home last weekend to return to 
Washington, I attempted to call my Washington office and was surprised 
to find the line busy. I tried again, and again, and again to no avail. 
When I finally got through, I was told that hundreds of angry parents 
had tied up the phone lines, all concerned about the detrimental 
effects H.R. 6 would have on the education of their children.
  The outpouring of public opposition seemed to me to be an appropriate 
refutation of the basic tenets of the bill: H.R. 6 assumes that 
Washington bureaucrats make better decisions than parents and local 
officials, but hundreds of parents in my district were concerned and 
actively involved enough to take the time to call and express their 
opinions. Parents are not and should not be passive participants. They 
have dedicated their lives to educating, nurturing, and caring for 
their children, and I do not believe that government should intrude on 
that relationship or interrupt that dedication.
  The target of most of this opposition has been the Miller amendment, 
which could have forced States to regulate private and home schools. I 
believe this to be an absolutely unconscionable intrusion into parental 
rights. The basic message was that parents who enroll their children in 
these types of schools are not knowledgeable enough, not involved 
enough, or not concerned enough to know if their child is receiving a 
solid education. I am here to tell this body that those parents are 
knowledgeable, are involved, and are concerned. I believe it much more 
likely that a parent lacking those attributes would simply send their 
child to a public school, rather than endure the hardships of home 
schooling or the financial commitment of a private school.
  I strongly support the Armey amendment, as I believe it is the only 
way to ensure the significant investment made by parents who enroll 
their children in nonpublic schools from the devastating risks of H.R. 
6. The end result of the ideals supported in H.R. 6 is a system where 
all schools follow one set of federally imposed guidelines, providing a 
monolithic, probably mediocre, education to all our children. The Armey 
amendment would seal off government intervention into nonpublic 
schools, and encourage a healthy diversity among schools.
  We must recognize that a given educational program may be 
extraordinarily successful for one child, and a just as spectacular 
failure for another. I cannot decide for any child but my own which one 
is best. In fact, no one in this Chamber can make that decision for any 
child but his own. The Armey amendment gives discretion to the only 
person who can make that decision--each and every parent in America.
  I applaud this body for its decision to strike the Miller language 
and avoid the preemption of parental rights. As of Thursday afternoon, 
my office had received nearly 700 calls from parents concerned about 
those rights. I hope we can now take the next step and approve the 
Armey amendment to protect parents and their rights.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].
  (Ms. PRYCE of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of 
Mr. Armey's amendment, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his 
amendment. Like many other offices, I have received will over 1,000 
calls and letters this week from citizens who are concerned that their 
rights to teach their children at home may be in jeopardy. These people 
are concerned with the education of their children, and work hard to 
ensure that their children receive quality instruction and moral 
guidance by teaching their children at home or sending them to private 
schools.
  Mr. Armey's amendment is needed because of the provision which could 
be interpreted to adversely affect private schools and home schoolers. 
Certification requirements for teachers should be a State government 
issue. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify any ambiguity in 
the bill which would suggest that the Federal Government is exerting 
excessive control over nonpublic schools.
  My constituents often express their anger over the amount of Federal 
control they encounter in their daily lives. This issue has many of my 
constituents scared. The passage of this amendment will alleviate the 
fear that many have expressed that the important educational choices 
they make for their children may be hampered. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Armey amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
strong support for the Armey amendment.
  Since the birth of our great Nation, many parents have made the 
choice to home school their children. The record clearly demonstrates 
that the children of these parents have been successful. In 1986 I was 
elected by the people of Alabama to serve on the State Board of 
Education. There I learned and I know firsthand that home schooling is 
successful in my home State of Alabama and must be allowed to continue.
  The amendment by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], would allow 
parents who wish to home school their children to continue to do so. 
Their parental rights must not be sacrificed. Conversely, there is 
absolutely no need nor justification for greater Federal Government 
intrusion into the home. Instead, we should respect the traditional 
rights of parents to choose, and empower parents with more, not fewer, 
reasonable and rational choices. Home schooling is such a choice.
  I urge my colleagues to support parental rights and the Armey 
amendment to H.R. 6.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey 
amendment. Once again the Federal Government is trying to take greater 
control of the private lives of citizens in Minnesota and around the 
country. H.R. 6 is another big government knows best bill that 
restricts what only families and localities are best suited to do: 
Educate our children and grandchildren.
  The Ford amendment, while protecting homeschoolers, does not protect 
private and parochial teachers. We must preserve their rights as well.
  In the past week my office has received thousands of calls and 
letters from very concerned moms and dads in Minnesota. They all oppose 
H.R. 6 and are rightfully worried that the arm of government is about 
to extend into all classrooms, including private and parochial, and 
that means losing the ability to provide the education for their 
children they way they see fit.
  Representative Dick Armey's amendment keeps parents in charge of the 
education of their children, not the Government. The Armey amendment 
fully corrects the committee's mistake.
  Freedom from excessive Government intrusion is a hallmark of our 
great Nation. Private, parochial, and homeschools are a natural 
outgrowth of that freedom, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the 
Armey amendment and preserve our right to educate our children and 
grandchildren in an environment of our choosing.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative 
Armey's amendment to H.R. 6. I was pleased to support the Ford 
amendment which was a step in the right direction.
  Improving our education system should be a national priority, and I 
strongly support efforts to assist localities in providing the best 
possible education for their children. However, I am opposed to 
increasing Federal control of our school systems and adding another 
layer of bureaucracy.
  In its current form, H.R. 6 not only threatens the independence of 
private education, but poses a potential blow to those who choose to 
educate their children at home. Mr. Armey's amendment would do away 
with this threat by specifying that the bill not impose additional 
constraints on home, private, or religious schools that do not receive 
funds under the act.
  As a former board member of the Duval Public Education Foundation, I 
know first-hand that bureaucrats make poor teachers. The Federal 
Government's role in education should be one of setting standards and 
providing resources, not dictating details which are better decided at 
the most immediate level--in communities, in classrooms and--
especially--by parents.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a very good debate on both 
amendments. I think the number of calls that we have received, as I 
said before, has been a great demonstration of democracy. This House 
does listen to the people.
  We did respond, and I think the Ford-Kildee amendment responded well. 
I am not sure the language of the gentleman is good or bad at this 
point, but I am concerned when we write language in such a very 
delicate area here on the floor. But I will work with the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we do agree that we both seek to achieve the 
same purpose. Neither one of us wants to see the long arm of the 
Federal Government reaching into our home schools, and we will work 
together to make sure that whatever we do in conference will assure 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I enjoyed working with the gentleman. He has been 
candid with me. We disagree on certain things, but the gentleman has 
always shared whatever information he had with me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me thank Chairman Ford, Chairman Goodling, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the ranking member of the 
committee and the next chairman of the committee, all the Members of 
Congress for their patience.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I can say that if we have a vote for Armey at 
this time and we pass Armey, we will leave private schools protected, 
home schoolers protected, and in fact that is what we seek to do. I can 
understand that there may be still some concern of some vestige of 
language trailing behind us, and in the conference, as I said before, I 
will seek to be there, and, if I may dare, to be the champion for the 
home schoolers and private schoolers.
  Mr. Kildee, who is himself the product of the fine work of the 
Jesuits in his early childhood education, I am sure will champion the 
cause of the Catholic schools. And I have no doubt whatsoever that by 
the time we come back from conference, we can all rest assured that 
absolutely no vestige of concern will be left, that everybody will 
understand their freedoms are protected, and I have no doubt there is 
goodwill on the part of all of us here in that regard.
  Mr. Chairman, I would recommend a vote on the Armey amendment 
because, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bacchus] said, it must be 
passed if it is to be conferenceable in the first place. I think it at 
the point now where we can proceed with that outcome.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank my colleague for yielding, to express my 
concerns. I understand the home school has been taken care of.
  Mr. ARMEY. If I can reclaim my time, the gentleman has made that 
point before. Mr. Chairman, the home schoolers have been taken care of 
to the satisfaction of the chairman of the committee. They have not, 
with the passage of his amendment, been taken care of to my 
satisfaction. I will only be satisfied that there is full and complete 
protection for the rights of the home schools with the passage of my 
own amendment, and there is a difference.
  Mr. de la GARZA. If the gentleman will yield further, that is the 
question I was getting to. The gentleman keeps insisting that he will 
correct in conference, that something will be done in conference, that 
he will be there fighting for everyone in conference. We have got to 
vote now, here. How can I be satisfied that the issue is settled by the 
gentleman's amendment, besides him telling me that it is?
  Mr. ARMEY. I have just been passed a note, Mr. Chairman, from the 
Catholic Conference that the revised amendment seems to address their 
concerns. Still, nevertheless, let me say, I am confident, this note 
here from the Catholic Conference reaffirms my confidence. Mr. Kildee 
will be in conference to look after that concern. I will be in 
conference to look after the concerns of the other private schools and 
the home schoolers. I don't believe there is a reason for us to be 
concerned. Pass the Armey amendment now and we can go home and rest 
easily tonight that the freedoms of all of these children, home 
schoolers, private schoolers, Catholic schoolers, will all be 
protected. Vote yes. A vote yes today is a vote that allows us all to 
sleep with the good confidence we have done our duty and protected the 
rights of free people.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, from all the cards, letters, flowers and 
phone calls I have had from these school children, I can tell you the 
face of freedom has a happy smile on it. Let us keep that smile glowing 
in America today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Hutto].
  (Mr. HUTTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Armey 
amendment. I have heard from many of my constituents in the Florida 
Panhandle who adamantly oppose the vague language in H.R. 6 that could 
put home and private schools in jeopardy. A clarifying amendment is 
vitally necessary in order to codify what we as the Congress of the 
United States believe; that the home and private schools of our Nation 
must be left well alone, as they receive no funding from the Federal 
Government.
  As a former educator, it is one of my strongest beliefs that parents 
should be involved in the education of their children. It has been 
found that a lack of parental involvement is at the root of the 
problems presently occurring in our Nation's schools. Why should those 
who choose to take an active role in their child's development be 
penalized? These parents have the constitutional right as Americans to 
educate their children in the manner they so choose. Congress should 
not stand in the way of teaching America's youth, particularly when 
prayer in schools has been eradicated and many parents home school 
their children for religious reasons.
  I do agree that it is preferable to have public school educators 
teach in the subject area for which they are certified. However, not at 
the expense of home and private schools. It is common sense to exempt 
these schools from certification and Government regulation.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Armey amendment to H.R. 6--the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
The purpose of this important amendment is to explicitly state that the 
Federal Government has no control over any aspect of any private, 
religious, or home school that does not receive funds under the act. 
This amendment is needed in order to protect the rights of private, 
religious, and home schools.
  First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for the 
hundreds of calls my office received on behalf of home schoolers, and 
parents who choose the form of education best suited for their 
children. This is a freedom that must be protected. The Federal 
Government must realize that it is the parents who know what's best for 
their children. Also, local school districts should be trusted to make 
decisions regarding education reforms. They know to base these reforms 
on the desires and special needs of the individual community.
  Although I supported the Ford amendment to H.R. 6 which concisely 
states that ``nothing in this act shall be construed to affect home 
schools,'' It does not go far enough. It does not even mention private 
schools, and it does not cover all home schools. In 16 States, 
including my home State of California, home schools are defined as 
private schools. That is why we desperately need the Armey amendment--
to make it crystal clear that the long arm of the Federal Government 
should not reach into the affairs of private, religious, or home 
schools.
  A vote in support of the Armey amendment, will be a vote for freedom. 
A yes vote will reaffirm what the American people already know--that 
the needs of our children will be best served when parents are free to 
make choices for them without the interference of the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6, as currently drafted, will severely 
limit local control of and parental choice in education. I rise 
specifically in support of two amendments--one by Representative Armey 
to strike the provisions of the bill that would effectively require 
State certification of home schoolers and one by Representative 
Goodling to strike the ``opportunity to learn standards'' from H.R. 6.
  H.R. 6 will effectively eliminate the rights of parents to home 
school their children. My office has received over 1,500 phone calls 
and faxes from parents who want H.R. 6 changed so they can continue to 
school their children in the manner that is best for their children. 
H.R. 6 will impose Government control over the rights of parents unless 
we pass the Armey amendment to strike the provision of H.R. 6 that will 
require State certification of home school teachers. The Federal 
Government should get out of the way and allow parents more flexibility 
in the education of their children.
  H.R. 6 will also expand Federal micromanagement of public education 
and place tremendous financial burdens on school districts throughout 
Arizona and the Nation. To be eligible for most Federal education 
dollars, school districts will have to adhere to curriculum quality and 
resource allocation opportunity-to-learn standards set by the U.S. 
Department of Education. However, the bill does not provide any funding 
to develop these standards.
  These opportunity-to-learn standards will also increase bureaucracy 
in public schools by requiring annual reports and other paperwork 
burdens on our schools. Again, H.R. 6 does not provide any funding to 
develop these reports.
  As a result of these unfunded Federal mandates, tax policy at the 
State and local level will be greatly negatively impacted. Congressman 
Goodling's amendment will strike the mandatory opportunity-to-learn 
standards provision of the bill.
  A vote for the Armey amendment and the Goodling amendment are both 
opportunities to acknowledge that our Nation's parents and local 
governments, not the Federal bureaucracy, know best the education needs 
of our Nation's young people. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Armey and the Goodling amendment.
  Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Armey 
amendment. I have heard from many of my constituents in the Florida 
Panhandle who adamantly oppose the vague language in H.R. 6 that could 
put home and private schools in jeopardy. A clarifying amendment is 
vitally necessary in order to codify what we as the Congress of the 
United States believe; that the home and private schools of our Nation 
must be left well alone, as they receive no funding from the Federal 
Government.
  As a former educator, it is one of my strongest beliefs that parents 
should be involved in the education of their children. It has been 
found that a lack of parental involvement is at the root of the 
problems presently occurring in our Nation's schools. Why should those 
who choose to take an active role in their child's development be 
penalized? These parents have the constitutional right as Americans to 
educate their children in the manner they so choose. Congress should 
not stand in the way of teaching America's youth, particularly when 
prayer in schools has been eradicated and many parents home school 
their children for religious reasons.
  I do agree that it is preferable to have public school educators 
teach in the subject area for which they are certified. However, not at 
the expense of home and private schools. It is common sense to exempt 
these schools from certification and Government regulation.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Armey's 
amendment to H.R. 6.
  My fellow colleagues: Do not be deceived. Mr. Armey's amendment is 
the only amendment that will truly protect the right of private, 
parochial, and home schools to provide education for their children 
without the threat of Government intrusion.
  The reason that most parents elect for alternatives to public 
education is to provide their children with an environment which 
espouses a framework of values and beliefs which they choose. In the 
past few days, I have received over 630 calls from my district opposing 
the proposed regulation on private, parochial, and home schools whose 
very existence is threatened by H.R. 6.
  It is my belief that State and local governments know the needs of 
our schools and are best able to improve them. Excessive Federal 
Government regulation only adds to the problems our schools are facing. 
Mr. Miller's amendment, however, puts all schools--public, parochial, 
and home--under the jurisdiction of a local education agency, 
regardless of State laws. Mr. Miller's amendment requires that by July 
1, 1998, all schools would be required to certify their teachers 
through their respective local educational agencies.
  Mr. Miller says he did not intend for his amendment to apply to home 
schools. If this is true, then I have two questions to ask. First, why 
was Mr. Armey's original amendment to protect home schooling rejected 
in committee? And second, why was the teacher certification provision 
included in the bill when it is already a requirement for public school 
teachers to be certified in all 50 States?
  Clearly, there is more at hand here than just concurring with a 
provision that is already law--this whole bill amounts to an 
unprecedented attempt by the Federal Government to control the entire 
educational arena.
  Mr. Armey's amendment, unlike Mr. Ford's, is the only amendment 
sufficient to protect home, private, and parochial schools from 
Government regulations regarding the certification of teachers, while 
at the same time, does nothing to prevent schools from participation in 
Federal programs. Mr. Ford's amendment is sufficient on two counts. 
First, it does not exempt private or parochial schools. In addition, it 
does not protect all home schools, because in 16 States, including my 
State of Texas, home schools are defined as private schools--Alaska, 
Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Michigan, Nebraska, Louisiana, Texas, Colorado, Florida, Maine, and 
Utah.
  We have an opportunity today to vote on an amendment that will either 
protect or threaten parents' rights to educate their children according 
to their own best judgment. I urge my colleagues to vote for the real 
amendment--the Armey amendment--which will truly protect the private, 
parochial, and home schools of America from big brother, Fed.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to comment on H.R. 6, the 
Improving America's Schools Act. There are many programs incorporated 
in this bill which I support, but there also are some provisions which 
need revision.
  I support the Armey amendment which clarifies that the Federal 
Government in no way requires certification or regulation of teachers 
in any private, religious, or home school.
  I applaud the fair and equitable revision of the chapter I formula 
that has emerged from the Education and Labor Committee. I am pleased 
to see the inclusion of a new chapter 2 that will permit State and 
local education agencies to create innovative programs, providing them 
the freedom to experiment within broad guidelines.
  I also am glad to see the inclusion of many portions of the Gender 
Equity in Education Act. These provisions address the current 
deficiencies in girl's education and the need for the elimination of 
sexual harassment in the schools. According to a recent survey by the 
American Association of University Women, nearly one in four students 
who have been sexually harassed say that this results in their not 
wanting to attend school. Nearly one in four girls say that harassment 
has caused them to stay home from school or cut a class. At a time when 
we are raising educational standards, we must heed these signals. We 
must eliminate hostile hallways and provide for safe and equitable 
treatment for all students.
  I am opposed to opportunity-to-learn standards being imposed on 
schools. I view them as an unfunded Federal mandate because the Federal 
Government fails to provide funding for the numerous provisions with 
which this legislation would have the local schools comply. Provisions 
of this bill would increase the bureaucracy and paperwork for schools 
and decrease their flexibility. Opportunity-to-learn standards 
concentrate on inputs rather than outcomes. I hope we can reach an 
agreement on focusing on raising student achievement and leaving the 
means to State and local education agencies.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Armey 
amendments to H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. 
During the markup of H.R. 6, the Committee on Education and Labor 
adopted a provision that requires all school teachers to be publicly 
certified. This certification requirement could easily be interpreted 
to apply to private school teachers and home school teachers, imposing 
an onerous burden on these valuable institutions.
  Parents are demanding reforms in our system of education. They are 
rightly demanding more choice, more local control, better schools, and 
freedom from Federal mandates and regulations. Unfortunately, the 
teacher certification requirement in H.R. 6 is just one more Federal 
mandate which would reduce choice and local control, while effectively 
eliminating most of our private and home schools.
  Under the current system of mandatory certification for teachers in 
public schools, Albert Einstein would not be allowed to teach high 
school physics; Martin Feldstein would not be allowed to teach junior 
high economics. The best and the brightest can still teach in our 
private schools, but are often not allowed to work in a public school. 
And now, the supporters of H.R. 6 and the teacher certification 
requirements would prohibit private schools from hiring on merit, and 
would effectively preclude home schooling, except where a home school 
teacher has the time and the resources to take a multiyear public 
teaching course.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Armey amendments as an effort to preserve 
the freedoms and diversity of American private education.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Armey amendment. During the past week, there has been an outpouring of 
concern from across the Nation that H.R. 6 will adversely impact 
parents who choose to teach their children at home. Those concerns must 
be addressed and the amendment before us does just that.
  The United States is entering an era of global change--political, 
economic, and scientific. We need to ensure that our children have the 
skills to interact, compete, and lead in those developing international 
community. Why in the world would we want to advocate a bill that even 
remotely threatens innovative education programs that have proven 
successful? And home schooling has proven to be successful.
  Despite the good intentions behind the teacher certification 
provision in H.R. 6, interpretation is everything. A family's decision 
to teach their kids at home could become a logistical nightmare if 
local education agencies choose to apply teacher certification 
requirements to nonpublic schools.
  Let's not encourage yet another situation where the Government tries 
to impose itself on a system that is meeting the needs of millions of 
Americans. Home schooling is a unique approach to education that has 
demonstrated positive results for those who chose it. To the best of my 
thinking, there has not been, nor is there now, an organized attempt to 
undermine the home schooling system. But where concern is registered 
and where ambiguity exists, we must address those concerns and clear up 
that ambiguity.
  Support the Armey amendment to H.R. 6.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Armey 
amendment. There has been a concern among many in my district that 
certain provisions in H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act of 
1994, could be interpreted to require the certification of private and 
home school instructors. Clearly some clarification of this matter is 
needed to alleviate the real concerns and fears of private and home 
school parents across the Nation caused by the language in the bill.
  I support the Armey amendment which removes the teacher certification 
requirements from the bill and, further, will clarify that nothing in 
this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, encourage, or authorize 
any Federal control over any aspect of any private, religious, or home 
school.
  I fully support the right of parents to choose the best schooling 
option for their children--whether that choice be private, religious, 
home, or public school. Further, I strongly believe that parents should 
be the one to make this decision, not the Government. I encourage 
parents to become more involved is making decisions about the education 
of their children. By passing this amendment, we will specifically 
preserve that important right. I am proud to support it, and urge my 
colleagues to vote in its favor.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 374, 
noes 53, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 32]

                               AYES--374

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--53

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Blackwell
     Carr
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Edwards (CA)
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Hamburg
     Hilliard
     Johnston
     Kildee
     Kopetski
     Lewis (GA)
     Matsui
     McDermott
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Norton (DC)
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Sawyer
     Stark
     Stokes
     Swift
     Towns
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews (TX)
     Gejdenson
     Green
     Hastings
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Laughlin
     Murtha
     Rush
     Synar
     Washington
     Wilson

                              {time}  1528

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Wilson for, with Mr. Synar against.

  Mr. McDERMOTT, Ms. NORTON, and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BERMAN and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendments en bloc, as modified, were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                AMENDMENTS EN BLOC OFFERED BY MR. KILDEE

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer a package of 
amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Kildee:
       Page 5, amend the heading for part E of title II of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the table 
     of contents as follows:

          ``Part E--Innovative Education Program Strategies''.

       Page 8, in the item relating to title V, strike:
                  ``TITLE V--MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE

                      ``PART A--PROMOTING EQUITY''

     and insert
                      ``TITLE V--PROMOTING EQUITY

                 ``PART A--MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE''

       Page 15, in the item relating to section 501, strike 
     ``study'' and insert ``evaluation''.
       Page 37, strike lines 8 through 11 (and redesignate any 
     subsequent paragraphs accordingly).
       Page 37, line 23, strike ``and revision''.
       Page 37, after line 23, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(2) shall appoint individuals to the peer review process 
     who shall be representative of State educational agencies, 
     local educational agencies, teachers, and parents;''.
       Page 52, line 19, after ``1117'' insert ``(c)(1) and (e)''.
       Page 52, line 20, after ``system'' insert ``, together with 
     other providers of assistance with which the State has made 
     specific arrangements to assist schoolwide programs, such as 
     comprehensive technical assistance centers, regional 
     laboratories, and institutions of higher education,''.
       Page 52, line 22, strike ``, including'' and all that 
     follows through ``team'' on line 24.
       Page 56, line 18, after ``local educational agency'' insert 
     ``and its school support team or other technical assistance 
     provider consistent with the provisions in subsections (c)(1) 
     and (e) of section 1117''.
       Page 59, strike lines 8 through 14 and insert the 
     following:

     identification shall be subject to corrective actions by the 
     local educational agency, as well as, where appropriate, 
     termination of schoolwide program status.
       ``(3) A school that has forfeited its schoolwide status may 
     not regain such status until the local educational agency 
     determines that the school has adequately reformed its 
     schoolwide program plan to enable it to make adequate 
     progress toward meeting the State's challenging performance 
     standards.
       Page 70, line 16, strike ``; and'' and insert a comma.
       Page 70, line 18, before the period insert ``, and in the 
     case of schoolwide programs, terminating schoolwide status''.
       Page 72, line 20, strike ``standards.'' and insert 
     ``standards, and submit such plan to the State educational 
     agency for approval.''.
       Page 188, line 21, strike ``and middle schools'' and insert 
     ``, middle schools, and secondary schools''.
       Page 311, strike line 20 and insert the following:

          ``PART E--INNOVATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM STRATEGIES''.

       Page 312, line 8, strike ``Goals 2000'' and insert ``Goals 
     2000: Educate America Act''.
       Page 313, beginning on line 25, strike ``the Trust 
     Territory of the Pacific Islands''.
       Page 314, line 1, insert ``and Palau (until the effective 
     date of the Compact of Free Association with the Government 
     of Palau),'' after ``the Northern Mariana Islands,''.
       Page 319, line 19, strike ``chapter'' and insert ``part''.
       Page 322, line 15, after ``local'' insert ``educational''.
       Page 445, strike lines 7 through 9 and insert the 
     following:
                      ``TITLE V--PROMOTING EQUITY

                 ``PART A--MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE''.

       Page 757, line 5, strike ``and''.
       Page 757, line 6, insert the following (and redesignate any 
     subsequent subparagraphs accordingly):
       ``(B) Subpart 1 of part B and part C of title II; and''.
       Page 802, strike lines 14 through 25.
       Page 898, line 12, strike ``Study'' and insert 
     ``Evaluation''.
       Page 898, line 14, strike ``In addition to'' and insert 
     ``In collaboration with''.
       Page 898, line 17, strike ``study'' and insert 
     ``evaluation''.
       Page 898, line 21, strike ``study'' and insert 
     ``evaluation''.
       Page 898, line 25, strike ``study'' and insert 
     ``evaluation''.
       Page 899, line 2, after ``Opportunities Act'' insert ``and 
     shall be coordinated with evaluations of such acts''.
       Page 899, line 3, strike ``study'' and insert 
     ``evaluation''.
       Page 899, line 13, strike ``study'' and insert 
     ``evaluation''.
       Page 899, line 20, strike ``to such'' and insert ``with 
     such''.
       Page 900, line 3, strike ``study'' and insert 
     ``evaluation''.
       Page 900, line 11, strike ``study'' and insert 
     ``evaluation''.
       Page 900, line 17, strike ``study'' and insert 
     ``evaluation''.
       Page 900, line 19, after ``report.'' insert ``The panel 
     shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act.''.
       Page 901, strike lines 2 through 4 and insert the 
     following: ``Any authority or requirement to make funds 
     available under this Act shall be effective only to the 
     extent provided in appropriation Acts.
       Strike out part G of title VI of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, as proposed to be added by 
     the amendment made by section 101 of the bill (page 519, line 
     8 through page 617, line 24).
       Page 875, after line 20, insert the following:

     PART F--AMENDMENTS TO STATUTES PERTAINING TO INDIAN EDUCATION

     SEC. 351. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

       Part B of title XI of Public Law 95-561 (25 U.S.C. 2001 et 
     seq.) is amended to read as follows:
       Page 875, after line 20, insert the text set out in the 
     bill as part G of title VI of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (page 519, line 8 through page 617, 
     line 24) and redesignate that part as part B, redesignate the 
     sections in that part so as to begin with section 1121, and 
     revise cross references to those sections accordingly.
       Page 875, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 352. APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO INDIAN SELF-
                   DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT.

       Section 5209(a) of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 
     1988 (25 U.S.C. 2508(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Certain Provisions To Apply to Grants.--All 
     provisions of section 5, 6, 7, 104, 105(f), 109, and 111 of 
     the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 
     except those provisions relating to indirect costs and length 
     of contract, shall apply to grants provided under this 
     part.''.

     SEC. 353. PAYMENTS.

       Section 5209(e) of Public Law 100-297, the Tribally 
     Controlled Schools Act of 1988, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the amount of the grant under section 
     5205 (and the amount of funds referred to in that section), 
     any payments to be made under section 5208 of this Act,'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof: ``a grant authorized to be made 
     pursuant to this part or any amendment to such grant'';
       (2) by striking ``the amount of, or payment of, the 
     administrative grant'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``an 
     administrative cost grant''; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof ``and the Equal Access to 
     Justice Act shall apply to administrative appeals filed after 
     January 1, 1994, by grantees regarding the Tribally 
     Controlled Schools Grant and Administrative Cost Grants.''.

     SEC. 354. ENDOWMENT FUNDS.

       Section 302 of Public Law 95-471, the Tribally Controlled 
     Community Colleges Assistance Act of 1978, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``section 333'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``section 331'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by deleting paragraph (1) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(1) provides for the investment and maintenance of funds 
     covered by such endowment account under the same conditions 
     and limitations as are in section 331 of the Higher Education 
     Act and the regulations implementing such provisions in 
     effect at the time such funds are invested;
       (3) in subsection (b)(3) by striking ``same'' the first 
     time it appears.

     SEC. 355. HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1992.

       Section 1518 of title XV of the Higher Education Amendments 
     of 1992 (relating to the Santa Fe Arts Institute) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(6) For the purpose of complying with the contribution 
     requirement in this subsection, the Institute may use funds 
     or in-kind contributions of real or personal property. For 
     the purposes of this paragraph, all contributions, in-kind 
     and real estate, which are on hand as of November 29, 1990, 
     and which were received after June 2, 1988, but which have 
     not been included in their entirety in computations under 
     this section shall be eligible for matching with Federal 
     funds appropriated in any year.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(1) Funds in the trust funds described in subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall be invested under the same conditions and 
     limitations as are in section 331 of the Higher Education 
     Act, and the regulations implementing such provisions in 
     effect at the time such funds are invested.''.
       Page 738, line 8, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 9104. APPLICABILITY TO BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 
                   OPERATED SCHOOLS.

       ``For purposes of any competitive program under this Act, 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs may apply on behalf of the 
     schools which it operates and it shall be subject to all 
     program and application requirements of the program for which 
     it applies.''.
       Page 486, strike line 24 and all that follows through page 
     487, line 21 and insert the following:
       ``(f)(1)(A) The Secretary shall conduct a monitoring and 
     evaluation review of a sampling of the recipients of grants 
     under this part each fiscal year, such sampling to take into 
     account size of the recipient and geographic location. The 
     purpose of the sampling shall be to provide the Secretary 
     with such information as is necessary to assist the Secretary 
     in carrying out his or her responsibility to provide 
     technical assistance under this part.''.
       Page 491, strike line 13 and all that follows through page 
     500, line 2, and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 6201. IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
                   INDIAN CHILDREN.

       ``(a) Purpose; Coordination.--(1) It is the purpose of this 
     section to support projects that are to develop, text, and 
     demonstrate the effectiveness of services and programs to 
     improve educational opportunities and achievement of Indian 
     children.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall take such steps as are necessary 
     to achieve coordination of projects funded under this part 
     with other programs funded under this Act and with other 
     Federal programs operated for the benefit of American Indian 
     and Alaska Native children.
       ``(b) Eligible Applicants.--State educational agencies, 
     local educational agencies, Indian tribes, Indian 
     organizations, federally supported elementary and secondary 
     schools for Indian students, Indian institutions, including 
     Indian institutions of higher education, and consortia 
     thereof may apply for grants under this section.
       ``(c) Authorized Projects and Activities.--Recipients of 
     grants under this section shall use the grant funds to carry 
     out projects and activities that meet the purpose of this 
     section, such as--
       ``(1) innovative programs related to the educational needs 
     of educationally deprived children;
       ``(2) educational services not available to such children 
     in sufficient quantity or quality, including remedial 
     instruction, to raise the achievement of Indian children in 1 
     or more of the core curriculum areas of English, mathematics, 
     science, foreign languages, art, history, and geography;
       ``(3) bilingual and bicultural programs and projects;
       ``(4) special health and nutrition services, and other 
     related activities, which meet the special health, social, 
     and psychological problems of Indian children;
       ``(5) special compensatory and other programs and projects 
     designed to assist and encourage Indian children to enter, 
     remain in, or reenter school and to increase the rate of high 
     school graduation;
       ``(6) comprehensive guidance, counseling, and testing 
     services;
       ``(7) early childhood and kindergarten programs, including 
     family based preschool programs that emphasize school 
     readiness and parental skills, and services to Indian 
     children with disabilities;
       ``(8) partnership projects between local educational 
     agencies and institutions of higher education that allow high 
     school students to enroll in courses at the postsecondary 
     level to aid them in the transition from high school to 
     postsecondary education;
       ``(9) partnership projects between schools and local 
     businesses for school-to-work transition programs designed to 
     provide Indian youth with the knowledge and skills they need 
     to make an effective transition from school to a first job in 
     a high-skill, high-wage career;
       ``(10) programs designed to encourage and assist Indian 
     student to work toward, and gain entrance into, institutions 
     of higher education; and
       ``(11) other services which meet the needs of this section.

     Preservice or in-service training of professional and 
     paraprofessional personnel may be a part of any program 
     authorized under this section.
       ``(d) Grants and Applications.--
       ``(1) Grants.--(A) The Secretary may make grants under this 
     section for up to 5 years. Grants may be made for the 
     planning, development, pilot operation, or demonstration of 
     any activity authorized under this section, with priority 
     given to those applications which present a plan for 
     combining 2 or more of these operations over a multiyear 
     period. The Secretary shall make such multiyear grants 
     subject to the conditions included below and shall provide 
     continuation funding for each fiscal year upon a positive 
     determination that the applicant has made substantial 
     progress in carrying out the operations covered under each 
     grant period, as set forth in the initial grant and any 
     subsequent modifications.'
       ``(B) The Secretary is also authorized to make 
     dissemination grants. Prior to making any such dissemination 
     grant, the Secretary shall make a finding that the material 
     or program to be disseminated has been adequately reviewed 
     and has shown (i) educational merit, and (ii) an ability to 
     be replicated.
       ``(2) Applications.--(A) Any eligible entity that desires 
     to receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner 
     as the Secretary may require.
       ``(B) Each application shall contain--
       ``(i) a description of how parents of Indian children and 
     representatives of Indian tribes have been, and will be, 
     involved in developing and implementing the project for which 
     assistance is sought;
       ``(ii) as assurance that the applicant will participate, at 
     the request of the Secretary, in any national evaluation of 
     projects under this section; and
       ``(iii) such other assurances and information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.

     ``SEC. 6202. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to increase 
     the number of qualified Indian persons in professions serving 
     Indian people, and to provide training as teachers, 
     administrators, teacher aides, social workers, and ancillary 
     educational personnel, and to improve the skills of those 
     presently serving in these capacities.
       ``(b) Eligible Applicants.--Eligible applicants under this 
     section are--
       ``(1) institutions of higher education, including Indian 
     institutions of higher education;
       ``(2) State and local educational agencies, in consortium 
     with institutions of higher education; and
       ``(3) Indian tribes and organizations, in consortium with 
     institutions of higher education.
       ``(c) Authorized Projects and Activities.--(1) Each 
     recipient of a grant under this section shall use the grant 
     funds to provide support and training for Indian persons, 
     consistent with the purposes of this section. Such activities 
     may include, but are not limited to, a continuing program, 
     symposia, workshops, conferences, and direct financial 
     support.
       ``(2)(A) For education personnel, such training may be in-
     service or preservice.
       ``(B) For those being trained in other fields, such 
     training shall be in programs that result in graduate 
     degrees.
       ``(3) In programs funded under this section, preference 
     shall be given to the training of Indians.
       ``(4) In making grants under this section, the Secretary 
     shall consider prior performance and may not limit 
     eligibility on the basis of the number of previous grants or 
     the length of time for which the applicant has received 
     grants.
       ``(d) Project Period.--The project period for each project 
     approved under this section shall be up to 5 years.
       ``(e) Service Obligation.--The Secretary shall, by 
     regulation, require that individuals who receive training 
     under this section perform related work which benefits Indian 
     people or repay all or a prorated part of the support 
     received. The Secretary shall establish by regulation a 
     mechanism for having the recipient provide information of 
     compliance with this requirement beginning within 12 months 
     of the completion of training received.''.
       Page 501, strike line 21 and all that follows through page 
     502, line 2 and insert the following:
       ``(e) Service Obligation.--The Secretary shall, by 
     regulation, require that individuals who receive financial 
     assistance under this section perform related work which 
     benefits Indian people or repay all or a prorated part of the 
     support received. The Secretary shall establish by regulation 
     a mechanism for having the recipient provide information of 
     compliance with this requirement beginning within 12 months 
     of the completion of training received.''.
       Page 507, strike line 19 and all that follows through page 
     509, line 2.
                                  ____

       Page 411, line 13, strike ``5004(a)(1)'' and insert 
     ``4004(a)(1)''.
       Page 412, line 2, strike ``5202'' and insert ``4202''.
       Page 412, line 5, strike ``5106(a)'' and insert 
     ``4106(a)''.
       Page 413, line 11, strike ``5101'' and insert ``4101''.
       Page 413, line 17, strike ``5101'' and insert ``4101''.
       Page 414, line 21, strike ``5104'' and insert ``4104''.
       Page 414, line 25, strike ``5106(a)'' and insert 
     ``4106(a)''.
       Page 415, line 5, strike ``5103(a)'' and insert 
     ``4103(a)''.
       Page 415, line 16, strike ``5105'' and insert ``4105''.
       Page 415, line 19, strike ``5103(b)'' and insert 
     ``4103(b)''.
       Page 416, line 2, strike ``5103(d)(2)(A)(i)(II)'' and 
     insert ``4103(d)(2)(A)(i)(II)''.
       Page 416, line 25, strike ``5101'' and insert ``4101''.
       Page 417, line 6, strike ``5121'' and insert ``4121''.
       Page 417, line 11, strike ``5101'' and insert ``4101''.
       Page 417, line 19, strike ``5122'' and insert ``4122''.
       Page 421, line 19, strike ``5104'' and insert ``4104''.
       Page 422, line 24, strike ``5103(d)'' and insert 
     ``4103(d)''.
       Page 424, line 24, strike ``5102'' and insert ``4102''.
       Page 425, line 15, strike ``5103(d)(2)(A)(i)(I)'' and 
     insert ``4103(d)(2)(A)(i)(I)''.
       Page 425, line 16, strike ``5103(d)(2)(A)(i)(II)'' and 
     insert ``4103(d)(2)(A)(i)(II)''.
       Page 426, line 12, strike ``5102'' and insert ``4102''.
       Page 432, line 5, strike ``5122'' and insert ``4122''.
       Page 434, line 10, strike ``5103(b)'' and insert 
     ``4103(b)''.
       Page 434, line 11, strike ``5103(d)'' and insert 
     ``4103(d)''.
       Page 435, line 9, strike ``5004(a)(2)'' and insert 
     ``4004(a)(2)''.
       Page 437, line 2, strike ``5106(a)'' and insert 
     ``4106(a)''.
       Page 438, line 9, strike ``5101(a)(3)'' and insert 
     ``4101(a)(3)''.
                                  ____

       Page 311, strike line 20 and insert the following:

            PART E--INNOVATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM STRATEGIES

       Page 313, after line 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 2403. DEFINITION.

       For the purposes of this part the term ``effective schools 
     programs'' means school-based programs that may encompass 
     preschool through secondary school levels and that have the 
     objectives of (1) promoting school-level planning, 
     instructional improvement, and staff development, (2) 
     increasing the academic achievement levels of all children 
     and particularly educationally deprived children, and (3) 
     achieving as ongoing conditions in the school the following 
     factors identified through effective schools research as 
     distinguishing effective from ineffective schools:
       (1) strong and effective administrative and instructional 
     leadership that creates consensus on instructional goals and 
     organizational capacity for instructional problem solving;
       (2) emphasis on the acquisition of basic and higher order 
     skills;
       (3) a safe and orderly school environment that allows 
     teachers and pupils to focus their energies on academic 
     achievement;
       (4) a climate of expectation that virtually all children 
     can learn under appropriate conditions; and
       (5) continuous assessment of students and programs to 
     evaluate the effects of instruction.
       Page 318, line 11, after ``activities'' insert ``including 
     effective schools programs''.
       Page 319, after line 5, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(3) sets forth the allocation of such funds required to 
     implement section 2252.
       Page 320, line 24, insert ``effective schools and'' after 
     ``including''.
       Page 321, line 19, insert ``(A)'' after ``(1)''.
       Page 321, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(B) sets forth the allocation of such funds required to 
     implement section 2252;
       Page 322, after line 4, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(3) provides assurances of compliance with the provisions 
     of this part, including the participation of children 
     enrolled in private, nonprofit schools in accordance with 
     section 2252;
       Page 327, after line 14, insert the following:

             ``Subpart 5--General Administrative Provisions

     ``SEC. 2451. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT; FEDERAL FUNDS 
                   SUPPLEMENTARY.

       ``(a) Maintenance of Effort.--(1) Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), a State is entitled to receive its full 
     allocation of funds under this part for any fiscal year if 
     the Secretary finds that either the combined fiscal effort 
     per student or the aggregate expenditures within the State 
     with respect to the provision of free public education for 
     the preceding fiscal year was not less than 90 percent of 
     such combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the 
     second preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall reduce the amount of the 
     allocation of funds under this part in any fiscal year in the 
     exact proportion to which the State fails to meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) by falling below 90 percent of 
     both the fiscal effort per student and aggregate expenditures 
     (using the measure most favorable to the State), and no such 
     lesser amount shall be used for computing the effort required 
     under paragraph (1) for subsequent years.
       ``(3) The Secretary may waive, for 1 fiscal year only, the 
     requirements of this subsection if the Secretary determines 
     that such a waiver would be equitable due to exceptional or 
     uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural disaster or a 
     precipitous and unforeseen decline in the financial resources 
     of the State.
       ``(b) Federal Funds Supplementary.--A State or local 
     educational agency may use and allocate funds received under 
     this part only so as to supplement and, to the extent 
     practical, increase the level of funds that would, in the 
     absence of Federal funds made available under this part, be 
     made available from non-Federal sources, and in no case may 
     such funds be used so as to supplant funds from non-Federal 
     sources.

     ``SEC. 2252. PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN ENROLLED IN PRIVATE 
                   SCHOOLS.

       ``(a) Participation on Equitable Basis.--(1) To the extent 
     consistent with the number of children in the school district 
     of a local educational agency which is eligible to receive 
     funds under this part or which serves the area in which a 
     program or project assisted under this part is located who 
     are enrolled in private nonprofit elementary and secondary 
     schools, or with respect to instructional or personnel 
     training programs funded by the State educational agency from 
     funds reserved for State use, such agency, after consultation 
     with appropriate private school officials, shall provide for 
     the benefit of such children in such schools secular, 
     neutral, and nonideological services, materials, and 
     equipment, including the participation of the teachers of 
     such children (and other educational personnel serving such 
     children) in training programs, and the repair, minor 
     remodeling, or construction of public facilities as may be 
     necessary for their provision (consistent with subsection (c) 
     of this section), or, if such services, materials, and 
     equipment are not feasible or necessary in one or more such 
     private schools as determined by the local educational agency 
     after consultation with the appropriate private school 
     officials, shall provide such other arrangements as will 
     assure equitable participation of such children in the 
     purposes and benefits of this part.
       ``(2) If no program or project is carried out under 
     subsection (a)(1) of this section in the school district of a 
     local educational agency, the State educational agency shall 
     make arrangements, such as through contracts with nonprofit 
     agencies or organizations, under which children in private 
     schools in that district are provided with services and 
     materials to the extent that would have occurred if the local 
     educational agency had received funds under this part.
       ``(3) The requirements of this section relating to the 
     participation of children, teachers, and other personnel 
     serving such children shall apply to programs and projects 
     carried out under this part by a State or local educational 
     agency, whether directly or through grants to or contracts 
     with other public or private agencies, institutions, or 
     organizations.
       ``(b) Equal Expenditures.--Expenditures for programs 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall be equal (consistent with 
     the number of children to be served) to expenditures for 
     programs under this part for children enrolled in the public 
     schools of the local educational agency, taking into account 
     the needs of the individual children and other factors which 
     relate to such expenditures, and when funds available to a 
     local educational agency under this part are used to 
     concentrate programs or projects on a particular group, 
     attendance area, or grade or age level, children enrolled in 
     private schools who are included within the group, attendance 
     area, or grade or age level selected for such concentration 
     shall, after consultation with the appropriate private school 
     officials, be assured equitable participation in the purposes 
     and benefits of such programs or projects.
       ``(c) Funds.--(1) The control of funds provided under this 
     part, and title to materials, equipment, and property 
     repaired, remodeled, or constructed therewith, shall be in a 
     public agency for the uses and purposes provided in this 
     part, and a public agency shall administer such funds and 
     property.
       ``(2) The provision of services pursuant to this section 
     shall be provided by employees of a public agency or through 
     contract by such public agency with a person, an association, 
     agency, or corporation who or which, in the provision of such 
     services, is independent of such private school and of any 
     religious organizations, and such employment or contract 
     shall be under the control and supervision of such public 
     agency, and the funds provided under this part shall not be 
     commingled with State or local funds.
       ``(d) State Prohibition Waiver.--If by reason of any 
     provision of law a State or local educational agency is 
     prohibited from providing for the participation in programs 
     of children enrolled in private elementary and secondary 
     schools, as required by this section, the Secretary shall 
     waive such requirements and shall arrange for the provision 
     of services to such children through arrangements which shall 
     be subject to the requirements of this section.
       ``(e) Waiver and Provision of Services.--(1) If the 
     Secretary determines that a State or a local educational 
     agency has substantially failed or is unwilling to provide 
     for the participation on an equitable basis of children 
     enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools as 
     required by this section, the Secretary may waive such 
     requirements and shall arrange for the provision of services 
     to such children through arrangements which shall be subject 
     to the requirements of this section.
       ``(2) Pending final resolution of any investigation or 
     complaint that could result in a determination under this 
     subsection or subsection (d), the Secretary may withhold from 
     the allocation of the affected State or local educational 
     agency the amount estimated by the Secretary to be necessary 
     to pay the cost of those services.
       ``(f) Determination.--Any determination by the Secretary 
     under this section shall continue in effect until the 
     Secretary determines that there will no longer be any failure 
     or inability on the part of the State or local educational 
     agency to meet the requirements of subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(g) Payment From State Allotment.--When the Secretary 
     arranges for services pursuant to this section, the Secretary 
     shall, after consultation with the appropriate public and 
     private school officials, pay the cost of such services, 
     including the administrative costs of arranging for those 
     services, from the appropriate allotment of the State under 
     this part.
       ``(h) Review.--(1) The Secretary shall not take any final 
     action under this section until the State educational agency 
     and the local educational agency affected by such action have 
     had an opportunity, for at least 45 days after receiving 
     written notice thereof, to submit written objections and to 
     appear before the Secretary or the Secretary's designee to 
     show cause why that action should not be taken.
       ``(2) If a State or local educational agency is 
     dissatisfied with the Secretary's final action after a 
     proceeding under paragraph (1) of this subsection, it may, 
     within 60 days after notice of such action, file with the 
     United States court of appeals for the circuit in which such 
     State is located a petition for review of that action. A copy 
     of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk 
     of the court to the Secretary. The Secretary thereupon shall 
     file in the court the record of the proceedings on which the 
     Secretary based this action, as provided in section 2112 of 
     title 28, United States Code.
       ``(3) The findings of fact by the Secretary, if supported 
     by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive; but the court, 
     for good cause shown, may remand the case to the Secretary to 
     take further evidence and the Secretary may thereupon make 
     new or modified findings of fact and may modify the 
     Secretary's previous action, and shall file in the court the 
     record of the further proceedings. Such new or modified 
     findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive if supported by 
     substantial evidence.
       ``(4) Upon the filing of such petition, the court shall 
     have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Secretary or to 
     set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the court 
     shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United 
     States upon certiorari or certification as provided in 
     section 1254 of title 28, United States Code.
       ``(i) Prior Determination.--Any bypass determination by the 
     Secretary under chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and 
     Improvement Act of 1981 shall, to the extent consistent with 
     the purposes of this chapter, apply to programs under this 
     chapter.

     ``SEC. 2253. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTING.

       ``(a) Local Educational Agencies.--A local educational 
     agency which receives financial assistance under this part 
     shall report annually to the State educational agency on the 
     use of funds under section 2431. Such reporting shall be 
     carried out in a manner which minimizes the amount of 
     paperwork required while providing the State educational 
     agency with the necessary information under the preceding 
     sentence. Such report shall be made available to the public.
       ``(b) State Educational Agencies.--A State educational 
     agency which receives financial assistance under this part 
     shall evaluate the effectiveness of State and local programs 
     under this part in accordance with section 2423(a)(2)(B). 
     That evaluation shall be submitted for review and comment by 
     the State advisory committee and shall be made available to 
     the public. The State educational agency shall submit to the 
     Secretary a copy of the evaluation and a summary of the 
     reports under subsection (a).
       ``(c) Reports.--(1) The Secretary, in consultation with 
     State and local educational agency representatives, shall 
     develop a model system which State educational agencies may 
     use for data collection and reporting under this part.
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary shall submit annually a report to 
     the Congress for the use of funds, the types of services 
     furnished, and the students served under this part.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall not later than October 1, 1998, 
     submit a report to the Congress summarizing evaluations under 
     subsection (b) in order to provide a national overview of the 
     uses of funds and effectiveness of programs under this part.

     ``SEC. 2254. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, upon request, 
     shall provide technical assistance to State and local 
     educational agencies under this part.
       ``(b) Rulemaking.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     under this part only to the extent that such regulations are 
     necessary to ensure that there is compliance with the 
     specific requirements and assurances required by this part.
       ``(c) Availability of Appropriations.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, unless expressly in limitation of 
     this subsection, funds appropriated in any fiscal year to 
     carry out activities under this part shall become available 
     for obligation on July 1 of such fiscal year and shall remain 
     available for obligation until the end of the subsequent 
     fiscal year.

     ``SEC. 2255. APPLICATION OF GENERAL EDUCATION PROVISIONS ACT.

       ``(a) General Rule.--Except as otherwise specifically 
     provided by this section, the General Education Provisions 
     Act shall apply to the programs authorized by this part.
       ``(b) Applicability.--The following provisions of the 
     General Education Provisions Act shall be superseded by the 
     specified provisions of this part with respect to the 
     programs authorized by this part:
       ``(1) Section 410(a)(1) of the General Education Provisions 
     Act is superseded by section 2254(b) of this part.
       ``(2) Section 433(a) of such Act is superseded by section 
     2254(a) of this part.
       ``(3) Section 436 of such Act is superseded by sections 
     2223 and 2233 of this part.
       ``(c) Special Rule.--Sections 440, 441, and 442 of the 
     General Education Provisions Act, except to the extent that 
     such sections relate to fiscal control and fund accounting 
     procedures, may not apply to the programs authorized by this 
     part and shall not be construed to authorize the Secretary to 
     require any reports or take any actions not specifically 
     authorized by this part.''.
       Page 82, line 16--insert ``basic'' following instructional.
       Page 82, Section 1122(c)(2) is amended by inserting after 
     subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph and 
     redesignating the succeeding subparagraphs and paragraph (2) 
     accordingly:
       ``(B) for the purpose of subparagraph (A), in the 
     determination of expenditures per pupil from state and local 
     funds or instructional salaries per pupil from state and 
     local funds, staff salary differentials for years of 
     employment shall not be included.''
       On page 855, after line 17, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(9) A state and local educational agency shall coordinate 
     with state and local housing agencies responsible for 
     developing the comprehensive housing affordability strategy. 
     Consideration shall be given to state and local housing and 
     shelter policies described in the Comprehensive Housing 
     Affordability Strategy to minimize educational disruption for 
     children who become homeless.''
       Page 852, line 24, delete ``, to the extent possible,''.
       Page 852, line 25, after ``selection'' add ``unless there 
     is a compelling reason for not complying with this 
     request.''.
       Page 37, after line 19 insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) how the state will coordinate activities funded under 
     this part with school-to-work and vocational education 
     programs, as appropriate.''
       Page 56, line 4, after ``development,'' insert 
     ``occupational information,''.
       Page 681, line 25, strike ``$40,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$50,000,000''.
       Page 682, line 9, strike ``shall'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``may''.
       Page 683, line 6, strike ``section'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``sections''.
       Page 683, line 7, after ``7601'' insert ``and 7607''
       Page 683, line 14, insert a new paragraph (3) and 
     redesignate accordingly:
       ``(3) provide an assurance that local educational agencies 
     receiving funds under this part will coordinate the use of 
     such funds with programs funded under other Parts of this 
     title or title I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 
     1993;''
       Page 685, line 17, insert:
       ``(b) Application Review.--The Secretary shall review all 
     applications submitted pursuant to this section by State 
     educational agencies.
       ``(1) The Secretary shall approve any application submitted 
     by a State educational agency that meets the requirements of 
     this section.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall disapprove any application 
     submitted by a State educational agency which does not meet 
     the requirements of this section, but shall not finally 
     disapprove an application except after reasonable notice, 
     provision of technical assistance, and an opportunity for a 
     hearing to the State.''
       Page 687, line 21, strike ``TRIENNIAL'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``BIENNIAL''.
       Page 687, line 23, strike ``3'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``2''.
       Page 688, line 4, strike ``3'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``2''.
                                  ____


                      Proposed Amendments to WEEA

       Page 459, Line 14, strike ``Special Assistant of the Office 
     of Women's Equity'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``Secretary''
       Page 465, Line 6, strike ``no more than four''
       Page 465, Line 11, strike ``four''
       Page 465, Line 12, insert before ``The Secretary'' ``To the 
     extent feasible''
       Page 466, strike lines 6 through 9.
       Page 466, Line 10, before ``The Secretary'' insert ``To the 
     extent feasible,''
       Page 469, beginning on line 16, strike ``the Secretary 
     shall establish no more than 4 priorities'' and on line 17, 
     strike ``of which''
       Page 469, Line 21, before ``The Secretary'' insert ``To the 
     extent feasible,''
       Page 829, Line 2 after ``technical assistance,'' insert 
     ``and'' and on Line 3 strike ``and the administration of 
     grant programs.
       Page 829, beginning on Line 5, after ``shall'' strike 
     ``report directly to the Secretary; and perform such 
     additional functions as the Secretary shall prescribe'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``advise the Secretary and Deputy 
     Secretary on all matter relating to gender equity.''
       Page and line numbers refer to the Committee print of H.R. 
     6.
       Page 439, line 5, Strike, ``the use of tobacco''
       Page 439, line 9 Insert the following paragraph and 
     (redesignate succeeding paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(B) education with respect to the use of tobacco by 
     elementary and secondary school students; and''
                                  ____


                            Title II, Part D

       Page 297, line 4, strike ``and schools'' and insert 
     ``schools, and other appropriate educational entities''
       Page 297, line 11, strike ``comprehensive assistance 
     centers'' and insert ``technical assistance system''
       Page 298, line 24, strike ``system of technical assistance 
     centers'' and insert ``comprehensive assistance centers and 
     the National Diffusion Network''
       Page 299, line 3, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''
       Page 299, line 6, strike ``2206(c)'' and insert ``2346(d)''
       Page 301, line 12, after ``centers,'' insert ``state 
     literacy centers,''
       Page 302, line 4, strike ``2303(a)'' and insert ``2343(a)''
       Page 304, line 16, strike ``Maintanence of Service'' and 
     insert ``Service and Application Requirements''
       Page 304, line 17, strike ``Effort'' and insert ``Service''
       Page 307, line 16, strike ``Facilitator'' and insert 
     ``Facilitators''
       Page 307, line 20, strike ``and schools'' and insert 
     ``schools, family and adult literacy programs, and other 
     appropriate educational entities''
       Page 310, line 17, strike ``projects, local educational 
     agencies,'' and insert ``projects and to local educational 
     agencies''.
                                  ____

       Page 689, strike line 20 and all that follows through line 
     4 on page 729 and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 8003. PAYMENTS RELATING TO FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF REAL 
                   PROPERTY.

       ``(a) In General.--Where the Secretary, after consultation 
     with any local educational agency and with the appropriate 
     State educational agency, determines for a fiscal year ending 
     prior to October 1, 1999--
       ``(1) that the United States owns Federal property in the 
     local educational agency, and that such property--
       ``(A) has been acquired by the United States since 1938;
       ``(B) was not acquired by exchange for other Federal 
     property in the local educational agency which the United 
     States owned before 1939; and
       ``(C) had an assessed value (determined as of the time or 
     times when so acquired) aggregating 10 percent or more of the 
     assessed value of all real property in the local educational 
     agency (similarly determined as of the time or times when 
     such Federal property was so acquired); and
       ``(2) that such agency is not being substantially 
     compensated for the loss in revenue resulting from such 
     ownership by increases in revenue accruing to the agency from 
     the conduct of Federal activities with respect to such 
     Federal property,

     then such agency shall be paid the amount described in 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Amount.--
       ``(1) In general.--(A) The amount that a local educational 
     agency shall be paid under subsection (a) for a fiscal year 
     shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph (2), except 
     that such amount shall be reduced by the Secretary by an 
     amount equal to the amount of revenue, if any, that such 
     agency received from activities conducted on such property 
     during the previous fiscal year.
       ``(B) If funds appropriated under section 8013(a) are 
     insufficient to pay the amount determined under subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary shall ratably reduce the payment to each 
     eligible local educational agency.
       ``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, a local educational agency may not be paid an 
     amount under this section which exceeds the difference of--
       ``(i) the maximum amount that such agency is eligible to 
     receive for such fiscal year under section 8004(b)(1)(C); and
       ``(ii) the amount that such agency receives in such fiscal 
     year under section 8004(b)(2).
       ``(2) Application of current levied real property tax 
     rate.--In calculating the amount that a local educational 
     agency shall be paid for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     apply the current levied real property tax rate for current 
     expenditures levied by fiscally independent local educational 
     agencies or imputed, for fiscally dependent local educational 
     agencies, to the current annually determined aggregate 
     assessed value of such acquired Federal property.
       ``(3) Determination of aggregate assessed value.--Such 
     aggregate assessed value of such acquired Federal property 
     shall be determined (on the basis of the highest and best use 
     of property adjacent to such acquired Federal property as of 
     the time such value is determined), and provided to the 
     Secretary, by the local official responsible for assessing 
     the value of real property located in the jurisdiction of 
     such local educational agency for the purpose of levying a 
     property tax.
       ``(c) Applicability to Tennessee Valley Authority Act.--For 
     the purposes of this section, any real property with respect 
     to which payments are being made under section 13 of the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 shall not be regarded 
     as Federal property.
       ``(d) Ownership by United States.--The United States shall 
     be deemed to own Federal property for the purposes of this 
     Act, where--
       ``(1) prior to the transfer of Federal property, the United 
     States owned Federal property meeting the requirements of 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subsection (a)(1); and
       ``(2) the United States transfers a portion of the property 
     referred to in paragraph (1) to another nontaxable entity, 
     and the United States--
       ``(A) restricts some or any construction on such property;
       ``(B) requires that the property be used in perpetuity for 
     the public purposes for which it was conveyed;
       ``(C) requires the grantee of the property to report to the 
     Federal government (or its agent) containing information on 
     the use of the property;
       ``(D) except with the approval of the Federal government 
     (or its agent), prohibits the sale, lease, assignment, or 
     other disposal of the property unless such sale, lease, 
     assignment, or other disposal is to another eligible 
     government agency; and
       ``(E) reserves to the Federal government a right of 
     reversion at any time the Federal government (or its agent) 
     deems it necessary for the national defense.

     ``SEC. 8004. PAYMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE FEDERALLY-CONNECTED 
                   CHILDREN.

       ``(a) Computation of Payment.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of computing the amount 
     that a local educational agency is eligible to receive under 
     subsection (b), (d), or (f) for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall determine the number of children who were in 
     average daily attendance in the schools of such agency, and 
     for whom such agency provided free public education, during 
     the preceding school year and who, while in attendance at 
     such schools--
       ``(A) resided on Federal property with a parent employed on 
     Federal property situated in whole or in part within the 
     boundaries of the school district of such agency;
       ``(B) resided on Federal property and had a parent on 
     active duty in the uniformed services (as defined in section 
     101 of title 37, United States Code);
       ``(C) resided on Indian lands;
       ``(D) had a parent on active duty in the uniformed services 
     (as defined by section 101 of title 37, United States Code) 
     but did not reside on Federal property; or
       ``(E) resided in low-rent housing.
       ``(2) Determination of weighted student units.--For 
     purposes of computing the basic support payment under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall calculate the total 
     number of weighted student units for a local educational 
     agency by adding together the results obtained by the 
     following computations:
       ``(A) Multiply the number of children described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) by a factor of 
     1.0.
       ``(B) Multiply the number of children described in 
     paragraph (1)(C) by a factor of 1.25.
       ``(C) Multiply the number of children described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) by a factor of .35 
     if the local educational agency has--
       ``(i) a number of such children described in such 
     subparagraphs which exceeds 6,500; and
       ``(ii) an average daily attendance for all children which 
     exceeds 100,000.
       ``(D) Multiply the number of children described in 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (1) by a factor of 
     .20.
       ``(b) Basic Support Payments and Payments With Respect to 
     Fiscal Years in Which Insufficient Funds Are Appropriated.--
       ``(1) Basic support payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the amount appropriated under 
     section 8013(b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is 
     authorized to make basic support payments to eligible local 
     educational agencies with children described under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(B) Eligibility.--A local educational agency shall be 
     entitled to receive a basic support payment under 
     subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year with respect to a number 
     of children determined under subsection (a) only if the 
     number of children so determined with respect to such agency 
     amounts to the lesser of--
       ``(i) at least 400 such children, or
       ``(ii) a number of such children which equals at least 3 
     percent of the total number of children who were in average 
     daily attendance, during such year, at the schools of such 
     agency and for whom such agency provided free public 
     education.
       ``(C) Maximum amount.--The maximum amount that a local 
     educational agency is eligible to receive under this 
     subsection for any fiscal year is the sum of the total 
     weighted student units, as computed under subsection (a)(2), 
     multiplied by--
       ``(i) the greater of--

       ``(I) one-half of the average per pupil expenditure of the 
     State in which the local educational agency is located for 
     the 3rd preceding fiscal year, or
       ``(II) one-half of the average per pupil expenditures of 
     all of the States for the 3rd preceding fiscal year;

       ``(ii) the comparable local contribution rate certified by 
     the State, as determined under regulations prescribed to 
     carry out the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st 
     Congress), as in effect on January 1, 1994; or
       ``(iii) the average per pupil expenditure of the State in 
     which the local educational agency is located, multiplied by 
     the local contribution percentage.
       ``(2) Payments with respect to fiscal years in which 
     insufficient funds are appropriated.--
       ``(A) In general.--For any fiscal year in which the sums 
     appropriated under section 8013(b) are insufficient to pay to 
     each local educational agency the full amount computed under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make payments based upon 
     the provisions of this paragraph.
       ``(B) Learning opportunity threshold payments.--(i) For 
     fiscal years described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
     shall compute a learning opportunity threshold payment 
     (hereinafter `threshold payment') by multiplying the amount 
     obtained under paragraph (1)(C) by the total percentage 
     obtained by adding--
       ``(I) the percentage of federally connected children for 
     each local educational agency determined by calculating the 
     fraction, the numerator of which is the total number of 
     children described under subsection (a)(1) and the 
     denominator of which is the total number of children in 
     average daily attendance at the schools served by such 
     agency; and
       ``(II) the percentage that funds under this paragraph 
     represent of the total budget of the local educational 
     agency, determined by calculating the fraction, the numerator 
     of which is the total amount of funds calculated for each 
     educational agency under this paragraph (not including 
     amounts received under subsection (f)), and the denominator 
     of which is the total current expenditures for such agency.
       ``(ii) Such total percentage used to calculate threshold 
     payments under paragraph (1) shall not exceed 100.
       ``(C) Ratable distribution.--For fiscal years described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall make payments as a 
     ratable distribution based upon the computation made under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(c) Prior Year Data.--All calculations under this section 
     shall be based upon data for each local educational agency 
     from the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the 
     agency is making application for payment.
       ``(d) Use of Funds for Children With Disabilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated under 
     section 8013(c) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall pay to 
     each eligible local educational agency, on a pro rata basis, 
     the amounts determined by--
       ``(A) multiplying the number of children described in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (a)(1) who are 
     eligible to receive services under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) by a 
     factor of 1.0; and
       ``(B) multiplying the number of children described in 
     subparagraph (D) of subsection (a)(1) who are eligible to 
     receive services under such Act by a factor of .5.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--A local educational agency that 
     receives funds under paragraph (1) shall use such funds to 
     provide a free appropriate public education to children 
     described in paragraph (1) in accordance with the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act.
       ``(e) Hold-Harmless Amounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, the total amount that the Secretary shall pay 
     to a local educational agency under subsections (b) and (f)--
       ``(A) for fiscal year 1995, shall not be less than 80 
     percent of the payment such agency received for fiscal year 
     1994 under section 3(a) of the Act of September 30 , 1950 
     (Public Law 81-874, 81st Congress), as in effect for fiscal 
     year 1994;
       ``(B) for fiscal year 1996, shall not be less than 60 
     percent of such payment received for fiscal year 1994; and
       ``(C) for fiscal year 1997, shall not be less than 40 
     percent of such payment received for fiscal year 1994.
       ``(2) Reduction in payments.--In order to make payments to 
     local educational agencies in accordance with paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall reduce payments to other local 
     educational agencies determined under subsection (b).
       ``(f) Additional Assistance for Heavily Impacted Local 
     Educational Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 
     8013(d) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall provide 
     additional assistance to meet special circumstances relating 
     to the provision of education in local educational agencies 
     eligible to receive assistance under this section.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--A local educational agency shall be 
     eligible to receive additional assistance under this 
     subsection only if such agency--
       ``(A)(i) has an enrollment of federally connected children 
     described in subsection (a)(1) which constitutes at least 40 
     percent of the total student enrollment of such agency; and
       ``(ii) has a tax rate for general fund purposes which is at 
     least 95 percent of the average tax rate for general fund 
     purposes of comparable local educational agencies in the 
     State;
       ``(B)(i) has an enrollment of federally connected children 
     described in subsection (a)(1) which constitutes at least 35 
     percent of the total student enrollment of such agency; and
       ``(ii) has a tax rate for general fund purposes which is at 
     least 125 percent of the average tax rate for general fund 
     purposes of comparable local educational agencies in the 
     State; or
       ``(C) is a local education agency whose boundaries are the 
     same as a Federal military installation or includes Federal 
     property under exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
       ``(3) Maximum payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall determine the maximum amount that a local 
     educational agency may receive under this subsection in 
     accordance with the following computations:
       ``(i) The Secretary shall first determine the greater of--

       ``(I) the average per pupil expenditure of the State in 
     which the local educational agency is located or the average 
     per pupil expenditure of all the States;
       ``(II) the average per pupil expenditure of generally 
     comparable school districts located in the State of the local 
     educational agency, as defined by the Secretary in 
     regulations; or
       ``(III) the average per pupil expenditure of three 
     generally comparable school districts located in the State of 
     the local educational agency, as defined by the Secretary in 
     regulations.

       ``(ii) The Secretary shall next subtract from the amount 
     determined under clause (i) the average amount of State aid 
     per pupil received by the local educational agency.
       ``(iii) The Secretary shall next multiply the amount 
     determined under clause (ii) by the sum of the total weighted 
     units of the local educational agency, as computed under 
     subsection (a)(2).
       ``(iv) If the tax rate of the local educational agency is 
     greater than 94 percent, but less than 100 percent, of the 
     tax rate of comparable school districts, the Secretary shall 
     next multiply the amount determined under clause (iii) by the 
     percentage that the tax rate of the local educational agency 
     is of--

       ``(I) the average tax rate of its generally comparable 
     school districts; or
       ``(II) the average tax rate of all the school districts in 
     the State in which the local educational agency is located.

       ``(v) The Secretary shall next subtract the total amount of 
     payments received by a local educational agency under 
     subsections (b) and (d) for a fiscal year from the amount 
     determined under clause (iii) or clause (iv), as the case may 
     be.
       ``(B) Special rule.--With respect to payments to local 
     educational agencies described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) 
     of paragraph (2), the maximum amount of such payments shall 
     be equal to the product of the average per pupil expenditure 
     of all the States multiplied by .7, except that such amount 
     may not exceed 125 percent of the average per pupil 
     expenditure of all local educational agencies in the State.
       ``(4) Current year data.--The Secretary shall, for purposes 
     of providing assistance under this subsection, use--
       ``(A) data from the fiscal year in which the local 
     educational agency is applying for assistance under this 
     subsection; or
       ``(B) the most recent data available which is adjusted to 
     such fiscal year.
       ``(5) Reduction in payments.--If funds appropriated to 
     carry out this subsection are insufficient to pay in full the 
     amounts determined under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall 
     ratably reduce the payment to each eligible local educational 
     agency.

     ``SEC. 8005. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO CHILDREN 
                   RESIDING ON INDIAN LANDS.

       ``(a) In General.--A local educational agency that claims 
     children residing on Indian lands for the purpose of 
     receiving funds under section 8004 shall establish policies 
     and procedures to ensure that--
       ``(1) such children participate in programs and activities 
     supported by such funds on an equal basis with all other 
     children;
       ``(2) parents of such children and Indian tribes are 
     afforded an opportunity to present their views on such 
     programs and activities, including an opportunity to make 
     recommendations on the needs of those children and how they 
     may help those children realize the benefits of those 
     programs and activities;
       ``(3) parents and Indian tribes are consulted and involved 
     in planning and developing such programs and activities;
       ``(4) relevant applications, evaluations, and program plans 
     are disseminated to the parents and Indian tribes; and
       ``(5) parents and Indian tribes are afforded an opportunity 
     to present their views on the agency's general educational 
     program to such agency.
       ``(b) Records.--A local educational agency that claims 
     children residing on Indian lands for the purpose of 
     receiving funds under section 8004 shall maintain records 
     demonstrating its compliance with requirements contained in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(c) Waiver.--A local educational agency that claims 
     children residing on Indian lands for the purpose of 
     receiving funds under section 8004 is excused from the 
     requirements contained in subsections (a) and (b) for any 
     year with respect to any Indian tribe from which it has 
     received a written statement that the agency need not comply 
     with those subsections because the tribe is satisfied with 
     the provision of educational services by such agency to such 
     children.
       ``(d) Technical Assistance and Enforcement.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) provide technical assistance to local educational 
     agencies, parents, and Indian tribes to enable them to carry 
     out this section; and
       ``(2) enforce this section through such actions, which may 
     include the withholding of funds, as the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate, after affording the affected local 
     educational agency, parents, and Indian tribe an opportunity 
     to present their views.

     ``SEC. 8006. APPLICATION FOR PAYMENTS UNDER SECTIONS 8003 AND 
                   8004.

       ``(a) In General.--A local educational agency desiring to 
     receive a payment under section 8003 or 8004 shall--
       ``(1) submit an application for such payment to the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(2) provide a copy of such application to the State 
     educational agency.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each such application shall be submitted 
     in such form and manner, and shall contain such information, 
     as the Secretary may require, including--
       ``(1) information to determine the eligibility of the local 
     educational agency for a payment and the amount of such 
     payment; and
       ``(2) where applicable, an assurance that such agency is in 
     compliance with section 8005 (relating to children residing 
     on Indian lands).
       ``(c) Deadline for Submission.--The Secretary shall 
     establish deadlines for the submission of applications under 
     this section.
       ``(d) Approval.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve an 
     application submitted under this section that--
       ``(A) is filed by the deadline established under subsection 
     (c); and
       ``(B) otherwise meets the requirements of this title.
       ``(2) Reduction in payment.--The Secretary shall approve an 
     application filed up to 60 days after a deadline established 
     under subsection (c) that otherwise meets the requirements of 
     this title, except that, notwithstanding section 8004(e), the 
     Secretary shall reduce the payment based on such late 
     application by 10 percent of the amount that would otherwise 
     be paid.
       ``(3) Late applications.--The Secretary shall not accept or 
     approve any application that is filed more than 60 days after 
     a deadline established under subsection (c).

     ``SEC. 8007. PAYMENTS FOR SUDDEN AND SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN 
                   ATTENDANCE OF MILITARY DEPENDENTS.

       ``(a) Eligibility.--A local educational agency is eligible 
     for a payment under this section if--
       ``(1) the number of children in average daily attendance 
     during the current school year is at least ten percent or 100 
     more than the number of children in average daily attendance 
     in the preceding school year; and
       ``(2) the number of children in average daily attendance 
     with a parent on active duty (as defined in section 101(18) 
     of title 37, United States Code) in the Armed Forces who are 
     in attendance at such agency because of the assignment of 
     their parent to a new duty station between July 1 and 
     September 30, inclusive, of the current year, as certified by 
     an appropriate local official of the Department of Defense, 
     is at least ten percent or 100 more than the number of 
     children in average daily attendance in the preceding school 
     year.
       ``(b) Application.--A local educational agency that wishes 
     to receive a payment under this section shall file an 
     application with the Secretary by October 15 of the current 
     school year, in such manner and containing such information 
     as the Secretary may prescribe, including information 
     demonstrating that it is eligible for such a payment.
       ``(c) Children To Be Counted.--For each eligible local 
     educational agency that applies for a payment under this 
     section, the Secretary shall determine the lesser of--
       ``(1) the increase in the number of children in average 
     daily attendance from the preceding year; and
       ``(2) the number of children described in subsection 
     (a)(2).
       ``(d) Payments.--From the amount appropriated for a fiscal 
     year under section 8013(c), the Secretary shall pay each 
     local educational agency with an approved application an 
     amount, not to exceed $200 per eligible child, equal to--
       ``(1) the amount available to carry out this section, 
     including any funds carried over from prior years, divided by 
     the number of children determined under subsection (c) for 
     all such local educational agencies; multiplied by
       ``(2) the number of such children determined for that local 
     educational agency.
       ``(e) Notification Process.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall endeavor to 
     establish, with the Secretary of Defense, a notification 
     process relating to the closure of Department of Defense 
     facilities, or the adjustment of personnel levels assigned to 
     such facilities, which may substantially affect the student 
     enrollment levels of local educational agencies which receive 
     or may receive payments under this title.
       ``(2) Information.--Such process shall provide timely 
     information regarding such closures and such adjustments--
       ``(A) by the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary; and
       ``(B) by the Secretary to the affected local educational 
     agencies.

     ``SEC. 8008. FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Current Facilities.--From the amount appropriated for 
     any fiscal year under section 8013(e), the Secretary may 
     continue to provide assistance for school facilities that 
     were supported by the Secretary under section 10 of the Act 
     of September 23, 1950 (Public Law 815, 81st Congress; 20 
     U.S.C. 640) as in effect prior to the date of the enactment 
     of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.
       ``(b) Transfer of Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, as soon as 
     practicable, transfer to the appropriate local educational 
     agency or another appropriate entity all the right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to each facility 
     provided under section 10 of the Act of September 23, 1950 
     (Public Law 815, 81st Congress; 20 U.S.C. 640), or under 
     section 204 or 310 of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public 
     Law 874, 81st Congress), as in effect on January 1, 1958.
       ``(2) Other requirements.--Any such transfer shall be 
     without charge to such agency or entity, and prior to such 
     transfer, the transfer must be consented to by the local 
     education agency or other appropriate entity, and may be made 
     on such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.

     ``SEC. 8009. STATE CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENTS IN PROVIDING 
                   STATE AID.

       ``(a) General Prohibition.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), a State may not--
       ``(1) consider payments under this title or under the Act 
     of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress) in 
     determining for any fiscal year--
       ``(A) the eligibility of a local educational agency for 
     State aid for free public education; or
       ``(B) the amount of such aid; or
       ``(2) make such aid available to local educational agencies 
     in a manner that results in less State aid to any local 
     educational agency that is eligible for such payment than it 
     would receive if it were not so eligible.
       ``(b) State Equalization Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may reduce State aid to a local 
     educational agency that receives a payment under sections 
     8003 and 8004(b) (except the amount calculated in excess of 
     1.0 under subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(2)) or under the 
     Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress) as 
     such Act existed prior to the enactment of the Improving 
     America's Schools Act of 1994 (other than an increase in 
     payments described in paragraphs (2)(B), (2)(C), (2)(D), or 
     (3)(B)(ii) of section 3(d) of such Act of September 30, 1950) 
     for any fiscal year if the Secretary determines, and 
     certifies under subsection (c)(3)(A), that such State has in 
     effect a program of State aid that equalizes expenditures for 
     free public education among local educational agencies in 
     such State.
       ``(2) Computation.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), a program 
     of State aid equalizes expenditures among local educational 
     agencies if, in the second preceding fiscal year, the amount 
     of per-pupil expenditures made by, or per-pupil revenues 
     available to, the local educational agency in the State with 
     the highest such per-pupil expenditures or revenues did not 
     exceed the amount of such per-pupil expenditures made by, or 
     per-pupil revenues available to, the local educational agency 
     in the State with the lowest such expenditures or revenues by 
     more than 10 percent.
       ``(B) Other factors.--In making a determination under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) disregard local educational agencies with per-pupil 
     expenditures or revenues above the 95th percentile or below 
     the 5th percentile of such expenditures or revenues in the 
     State; and
       ``(ii) take into account the extent to which a program of 
     State aid reflects the additional cost of providing free 
     public education in particular types of local educational 
     agencies, such as those that are geographically isolated, or 
     to particular types of students, such as children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(3) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), if the 
     Secretary determines that the State has substantially revised 
     its program of State aid, the Secretary may certify such 
     program for any fiscal year only if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines, on the basis of projected 
     data, that the State's program will meet the 10 percent 
     disparity standard described in paragraph (2) in that fiscal 
     year; and
       ``(B) the State provides an assurance to the Secretary 
     that, if final data do not demonstrate that the State's 
     program met such standard for that year (or that it met such 
     standard with a greater percentage of disparity than 
     anticipated), the State will pay to each affected local 
     educational agency the amount by which it reduced State aid 
     to the local educational agency on the basis of such 
     certification, or a proportionate share thereof, as the case 
     may be.
       ``(c) Procedures for Review of State Equalization Plans.--
       ``(1) Written notice.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any State that wishes to consider 
     payments described in subsection (b)(1) in providing State 
     aid to local educational agencies shall submit to the 
     Secretary, not later than 120 days before the beginning of 
     the State's fiscal year, a written notice of its intention to 
     do so.
       ``(B) Contents.--Such notice shall be in the form and 
     contain the information the Secretary requires, including 
     evidence that the State has notified each local educational 
     agency in the State of its intention to consider such 
     payments in providing State aid.
       ``(2) Opportunity to present views.--Before making a 
     determination under subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     afford the State, and local educational agencies in the 
     State, an opportunity to present their views.
       ``(3) Qualification procedures.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a program of State aid qualifies under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) certify the program and so notify the State; and
       ``(B) afford an opportunity for a hearing, in accordance 
     with section 8011(a), to any local educational agency 
     adversely affected by such certification.
       ``(4) Non-qualification procedures.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a program of State aid does not qualify under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) so notify the State; and
       ``(B) afford an opportunity for a hearing, in accordance 
     with section 8011(a), to the State, and to any local 
     educational agency adversely affected by such determination.
       ``(d) Reductions of State Aid.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State whose program of State aid has 
     been certified by the Secretary under subsection (c)(3) may 
     reduce the amount of such aid provided to a local educational 
     agency that receives a payment under section 8003 and section 
     8004(b) by any amount up to--
       ``(A) the amount of such payment (excluding amounts 
     provided under subsections (d) and (f) of section 8004 and 
     the amount calculated in excess of 1.0 under section 
     8004(a)(2)); multiplied by
       ``(B) 100 percent minus the percentage of disparity 
     determined under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Prohibition.--A State may not make a reduction 
     described in paragraph (1) before its program of State aid 
     has been certified by the Secretary under subsection (c)(3).
       ``(e) Remedies for State Violations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary or any aggrieved local 
     educational agency may, without exhausting administrative 
     remedies, bring an action in a United States district court 
     against any State that violates subsection (a) or subsection 
     (d)(2) or fails to carry out an assurance provided under 
     subsection (b)(3)(B).
       ``(2) Immunity.--A State shall not be immune under the 
     eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     from an action described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Relief.--The court shall grant such relief as it 
     determines is appropriate, which may include attorney's fees 
     to a prevailing local educational agency.

     ``SEC. 8010. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Payments in Whole Dollar Amounts--The Secretary shall 
     round any payments under this title to the nearest whole 
     dollar amount.
       ``(b) Other Agencies.--Each Federal agency administering 
     Federal property on which children reside, and each agency 
     principally responsible for an activity that may occasion 
     assistance under this title, shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, comply with requests of the Secretary for 
     information the Secretary may require to carry out this 
     title.

     ``SEC. 8011. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       ``(a) Administrative Hearings.--A local educational agency 
     and a State that is adversely affected by any action of the 
     Secretary under this title shall be entitled to a hearing on 
     such action in the same manner as if such agency were a 
     person under chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(b) Judicial Review of Secretarial Action.--
       ``(1) In general.--A local educational agency or a State 
     aggrieved by the Secretary's final decision following an 
     agency proceeding under subsection (a) may, within 60 days 
     after receiving notice of such decision, file with the United 
     States court of appeals for the circuit in which such agency 
     or State is located a petition for review of that action. The 
     clerk of the court shall promptly transmit a copy of the 
     petition to the Secretary. The Secretary shall then file in 
     the court the record of the proceedings on which the 
     Secretary's action was based, as provided in section 2112 of 
     title 28, United States Code.
       ``(2) Findings of fact.--The findings of fact by the 
     Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be 
     conclusive, but the court, for good cause shown, may remand 
     the case to the Secretary to take further evidence. The 
     Secretary may thereupon make new or modified findings of fact 
     and may modify the Secretary's previous action, and shall 
     file in the court the record of the further proceedings. Such 
     new or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive 
     if supported by substantial evidence.
       ``(3) Review.--The court shall have exclusive jurisdiction 
     to affirm the action of the Secretary or to set it aside, in 
     whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall be subject 
     to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon 
     certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of 
     title 28, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 8012. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title, the following definitions 
     apply:
       ``(1) Armed forces.--The term `Armed Forces' means the 
     Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
       ``(2) Average per-pupil expenditure.--The term `average 
     per-pupil expenditure' means--
       ``(A) the aggregate current expenditures of all local 
     educational agencies in the State; divided by
       ``(B) the total number of children in average daily 
     attendance for whom such agencies provided free public 
     education.
       ``(3) Construction.--The term `construction' means--
       ``(A) the preparation of drawings and specifications for 
     school facilities;
       ``(B) erecting, building, acquiring, altering, remodeling, 
     repairing, or extending school facilities;
       ``(C) inspecting and supervising the construction of school 
     facilities; and
       ``(D) debt service for such activities.
       ``(4) Federal property.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     through (F), the term `Federal property' means real property 
     that is not subject to taxation by any State or any political 
     subdivision of a State due to Federal agreement, law, or 
     policy, and that is--
       ``(i) owned by the United States or leased by the United 
     States from another entity;
       ``(ii)(I) held in trust by the United States for individual 
     Indians or Indian tribes;
       ``(II) held by individual Indians or Indian tribes subject 
     to restrictions on alienation imposed by the United States;
       ``(III) conveyed at any time under the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203, 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) to 
     a Native individual, Native group, or Village or Regional 
     corporation;
       ``(IV) public land owned by the United States that is 
     designated for the sole use and benefit of individual Indians 
     or Indian tribes; or
       ``(V) used for low-rent housing, as otherwise described in 
     this paragraph, that is located on land described in 
     subclause (I), (II), (III), or (IV) of this clause or on land 
     that met one of those descriptions immediately before its use 
     for such housing;
       ``(iii)(I) part of a low-rent housing project assisted 
     under the United States Housing Act of 1937; or
       ``(II) used to provide housing for homeless children at 
     closed military installations pursuant to section 501 of the 
     Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     11411); or
       ``(iv) owned by a foreign government or by an international 
     organization.
       ``(B) Schools providing flight training to members of air 
     force.--The term `Federal property' includes, so long as not 
     subject to taxation by any State or any political subdivision 
     of a State, and whether or not that tax exemption is due to 
     Federal agreement, law, or policy, any school providing 
     flight training to members of the Air Force under contract 
     with the Air Force at an airport owned by a State or 
     political subdivision of a State.
       ``(C) Non-federal easements, leases, licenses, permits, 
     improvements, and certain other real property.--The term 
     `Federal property' includes, whether or not subject to 
     taxation by a State or a political subdivision of a State--
       ``(i) any non-Federal easement, lease, license, permit, or 
     other such interest in Federal property as otherwise 
     described in this paragraph, but not including any non-
     Federal fee-simple interest;
       ``(ii) any improvement on Federal property as otherwise 
     described in this paragraph; and
       ``(iii) real property that, immediately before its sale or 
     transfer to a non-Federal party, was owned by the United 
     States and otherwise qualified as Federal property described 
     in this paragraph, but only for one year beyond the end of 
     the fiscal year of such sale or transfer.
       ``(D) Certain postal service property and pipelines and 
     utility lines.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     paragraph, the term `Federal property' does not include--
       ``(i) any real property under the jurisdiction of the 
     United States Postal Service that is used primarily for the 
     provision of postal services; or
       ``(ii) pipelines and utility lines.
       ``(E) Property with respect to which state or local tax 
     revenues may not be expended, allocated, or available for 
     free public education.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this paragraph, `Federal property' does not include any 
     property on which children reside that is otherwise described 
     in this paragraph if--
       ``(i) no tax revenues of the State or of any political 
     subdivision of the State may be expended for the free public 
     education of children who reside on that Federal property; or
       ``(ii) no tax revenues of the State are allocated or 
     available for the free public education of such children.
       ``(F) Certain property located in state of oklahoma owned 
     by indian housing authority for low-income housing.--The term 
     `Federal property' includes any real property located in the 
     State of Oklahoma that--
       ``(i) is owned by an Indian housing authority and used for 
     low-income housing (including housing assisted under the 
     mutual help ownership opportunity program under section 202 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937); and
       ``(ii) at any time--

       ``(I) was designated by treaty as tribal land; or
       ``(II) satisfied the definition of Federal property under 
     section 403(1)(A) of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public 
     Law 874, 81st Congress).

       ``(5) Free public education.--The term `free public 
     education' means education that is provided--
       ``(A) at public expense, under public supervision and 
     direction, and without tuition charge; and
       ``(B) as elementary or secondary education, as determined 
     under State law, except that, notwithstanding State law, such 
     term--
       ``(i) includes preschool education; and
       ``(ii) does not include any education provided beyond grade 
     12.
       ``(6) Indian lands.--The term `Indian lands' means any 
     Federal property described in paragraph (4)(A)(ii) or (4)(F).
       ``(7) Local contribution percentage.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `local contribution percentage' 
     means the percentage of current expenditures in the State 
     derived from local and intermediate sources, as reported to 
     and verified by the National Center for Education Statistics.
       ``(B) Hawaii and district of columbia.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), the local contribution percentage for 
     Hawaii and for the District of Columbia shall be the local 
     contribution percentage computed for the Nation as a whole.
       ``(8) Local educational agency.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `local educational agency'--
       ``(i) means a board of education or other legally 
     constituted local school authority having administrative 
     control and direction of free public education in a county, 
     township, independent school district, or other school 
     district; and
       ``(ii) includes any State agency that directly operates and 
     maintains facilities for providing free public education.
       ``(B) Exception.--The term `local educational agency' does 
     not include any agency or school authority that the Secretary 
     determines on a case-by-case basis--
       ``(i) was constituted or reconstituted primarily for the 
     purpose of receiving assistance under this title or the Act 
     of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress) or 
     increasing the amount of such assistance; or
       ``(ii) is not constituted or reconstituted for legitimate 
     educational purposes.
       ``(9) Low-rent housing.--The term `low-rent housing' means 
     housing located on property that is described paragraph 
     (4)(A)(iii).
       ``(10) Revenue derived from local sources.--The term 
     `revenue derived from local sources' means--
       ``(A) revenue produced within the boundaries of a local 
     educational agency and available to such agency for its use; 
     or
       ``(B) funds collected by another governmental unit, but 
     distributed back to a local educational agency in the same 
     proportion as it was collected as a local revenue source.
       ``(11) School facilities.--The term `school facilities' 
     includes--
       ``(A) classrooms and related facilities; and
       ``(B) equipment, machinery, and utilities necessary or 
     appropriate for school purposes.

     ``SEC. 8013. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Payments for Federal Acquisition of Real Property.--
     For the purpose of making payments under section 8003, there 
     are authorized to be appropriated $16,750,000 for fiscal year 
     1995 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
       ``(b) Basic Payments.--For the purpose of making payments 
     under section 8004(a), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $775,500,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 
     1998, and 1999.
       ``(c) Payments for Children With Disabilities.--For the 
     purpose of making payments under section 8004(d), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $45,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1995 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
       ``(d) Payments for Heavily Impacted Local Educational 
     Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of making payments under 
     section 8004(f), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $42,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 
     1999.
       ``(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.

       Page 864, after line 4, insert the following:
       (a) Section 1.--Section 1 of the Act of September 23, 1950 
     (Public Law 815, 81st Congress; 20 U.S.C. 631) is amended--
       (1) by striking the 2nd sentence of subsection (a); and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     this Act $12,500,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 
     1998, and 1999.''.

       Page 864, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 7 
     and insert the following:
       (b) Section 2.--Section 2 of such Act is amended to read as 
     follows:
       Page 864, line 19, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 866, line 3, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 869, line 10, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.

                      Title V Technical Amendment

       Page 901, strike lines 2 through 4 and insert the 
     following:
       Any authority or requirement to make funds available under 
     this Act shall be effective only to the extent provided in 
     appropriations acts.


        modification to amendments en bloc offered by mr. kildee

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my en 
bloc amendments with an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Kildee:
       At the end of the en bloc amendments add the following:
       Beginning on page 28, strike line 12 and all that follows 
     through page 30, line 2, and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:
       ``(iii) model opportunity to learn standards for schools 
     which receive assistance under this title that address--
       (I) the alignment of curricula, instructional materials, 
     and other school resources with the content and performance 
     standards adopted by the State;
       (II) the capability of teachers to provide high quality 
     instruction within each subject area for which the State has 
     adopted content and performance standards;
       (III) such other factors that the State deems appropriate 
     to ensure that students served under this title receive a 
     fair opportunity to achieve the knowledge and skills 
     described in content and performance standards adopted by the 
     State.''
       Page 34, strike lines 7 through 11 (and redesignate any 
     subsequent paragraphs accordingly)
       Page 36, line 18 after ``agencies'' insert ``and the public 
     of the standards and assessments developed under this 
     section, and''
       Page 39, after line 12, insert the following new paragraph 
     (and redesignate accordingly):
       ``(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     implementation of model opportunity to learn standards shall 
     be voluntary on the part of the States, local educational 
     agencies, and schools.''
       Page 39, after line 17, insert the following new paragraphs 
     (and redesignate accordingly):
       ``(i) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create 
     a legally enforceable right for any person against a State, 
     local educational agency, or school based on opportunity to 
     learn standards.
       (j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to mandate 
     equalized spending per pupil for a State, local educational 
     agency, or school.
       (k) Nothing in this section shall be construed to mandate 
     national school building standards for a State, local 
     educational agency, or school.''
       Page 42, strike lines 19 through 22
       Page 67, strike lines 7 through 9
       Page 69, line 3, after ``standards'' insert ``including 
     reviewing the school's plan in the context of the State's 
     model opportunity to learn standards''
       Page 70, line 13 after ``include'' insert ``implementing 
     the State's model opportunity to learn standards,''
       Page 72, line 20, after ``standards'' insert ``including 
     reviewing the local educational agency's plan in the context 
     of the State's model opportunity to learn standards''
       Page 74, line 1, after ``include'' insert ``implementing 
     the State's model opportunity to learn standards,''
       Page 75, line 12, strike ``and opportunity to learn 
     standards''
       Page 91, line 19, strike ``opportunity to learn standards''
       Page 183, after line 16 insert the following (and 
     redesignate accordingly):
       ``(v) are using any of the voluntary model State 
     opportunity to learn standards that may have been implemented 
     and whether they are useful in improving learning.''

  Mr. KILDEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
  There was no objection.


 modification offered by ms. long to amendments en bloc, as modified, 
                         offered by mr. kildee

  Ms. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I 
had intended to offer at a later time be included also in the en bloc 
amendments offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Ms. Long to amendments en bloc, as 
     modified, offered by Mr. Kildee:
       Page 330, line 6, strike ``and''.
       Page 330, line 7, insert the following (and redesignate any 
     subsequent subparagraphs accordingly):
       ``(M) The development and expansion of public-private 
     partnership programs which extend the learning experience, 
     via computers, beyond the classroom environment into student 
     homes.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I offer for myself 
and Mr. Goodling, represents a bipartisan agreement on the bill's 
opportunity-to-learn provisions.
  This amendment: Clearly provides that the implementation of model 
opportunity-to-learn standards by States, local educational agencies, 
and schools is voluntary and not mandated;
  Simplifies the definition of opportunity-to-learn standards;
  Limits the paperwork burden on local educational agencies and 
schools;
  Clarifies that model opportunity-to-learn standards cannot be 
enforced through litigation; and
  Recognizes that model opportunity-to-learn standards can be a useful 
resource for school improvement.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a compromise in the best sense of the word.
  It successfully addresses the concerns of many of my Republican 
colleagues while preserving the original purpose of the Owens 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the Record several letters 
from the private and home school community in support of the Ford-
Kildee amendment.

                                                       Council for


                                   American Private Education,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 1994.
     Hon. Dale Kildee,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and 
         Vocational Education, Rayburn House Office Bldg., 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Kildee: As I am sure you are aware, 
     there has been a great deal of misinformation and concern 
     raised in recent days about an amendment which was added to 
     H.R. 6, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), by 
     Representative George Miller. The amendment would require 
     that states assure the Department of Education that local 
     education agencies (LEAs) ``certify that each full time 
     teacher in schools under the jurisdiction of the agency is 
     certified to teach'' in his or her subject area.
       The Council for American Private Education, like several 
     House offices, has been inundated with questions to clarify 
     whether this amendment would affect private schools. Since 
     private schools are not ``under the jurisdiction'' of LEAs, 
     we understand that this amendment would have no affect on 
     private schools. Further, we know that requiring states to 
     mandate teacher certification for private schools was not the 
     intent of Representative Miller's amendment, nor would it be 
     the effect.
       On behalf of CAPE, I want to assure you of our continued 
     support for reauthorization of the ESEA. We in no way want 
     the input of other groups, that do not represent the 14 
     national elementary and secondary private school associations 
     in CAPE, to be confused for our position on this important 
     legislation.
       Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this issue. We 
     appreciate your leadership on the Committee and concern for 
     educating all the nation's children.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Joyce G. McCray,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                      Department of Education,

                                Washington, DC, February 24, 1994.
     Hon. William D. Ford,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the United States Catholic 
     Conference (``USCC'') I am writing to you concerning two 
     pending amendments to H.R. 6, Improving America's Schools Act 
     of 1994.
       It is our understanding that an amendment cosponsored by 
     you and Congressmen Kildee, Goodling and Gunderson (``Ford/
     Kildee Amendment'') will be offered today when the House 
     considers H.R. 6. The Ford/Kildee Amendment will, in part, 
     delete from H.R. 6 section 2124(e) which has generated much 
     confusion and controversy regarding the possibility of a 
     federal mandate for local educational agencies to certify 
     teachers in Catholic and other private schools. By deleting 
     section 2124(e) the Ford/Kildee Amendment will eliminate this 
     confusion and make clear that H.R. 6 does not require 
     certification of private school teachers. For this reason the 
     Conference supports passage of the Ford/Kildee Amendment.
       It has also come to our attention that Congressman Armey 
     will offer an amendment to H.R. 6 which, in part, would add 
     the following new provision to H.R. 6.
       Sec. 9508. General Provision Regarding Nonrecipient 
     Nonpublic Schools
       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, 
     encourage, or authorize any federal control over any aspect 
     of any private, religious, or home school that does not 
     receive funds or does not participate in programs or services 
     under the Act.''
       We oppose this provision in the Armey Amendment for two 
     reasons.
       First, while the Armey Amendment explicitly states that 
     private schools that do not participate in programs under 
     H.R. 6 are not subject to federal control, the Amendment 
     implies that private schools who themselves or whose students 
     and teachers do participate in H.R. 6's programs are subject 
     to broad federal control. Students in Catholic schools have 
     participated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (``ESEA'') programs since its passage in 1965 without 
     federal control over Catholic schools. To interject into the 
     statute in 1994 the concept that private schools whose 
     students participate in federal programs are subject to broad 
     federal control can only invite government administrators to 
     attempt to exert control over Catholic schools. This has not 
     been the experience under ESEA and it would be a mistake to 
     facilitate such a disastrous result by adding this provision 
     to H.R. 6. The provision establishes a dangerous precedent in 
     ESEA and for future federal education programs, with great 
     potential for harm to private schools.
       In addition, in our view there has been no demonstrated 
     need for this new provision. We are unaware of any provision 
     in H.R. 6 that gives the federal government control over 
     private schools that do not participate in programs under 
     H.R. 6. In addition, H.R. 6 leaves in place section 432 
     (redesignated section 438) of the General Education 
     Provisions Act (``GEPA''), which applies to H.R. 6, that 
     expressly prohibits the federal government from exercising 
     ``any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, 
     program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any 
     educational institution, school, or school system, or over 
     the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other 
     printed or published instructional materials by any 
     educational institution school system.'' (Emphasis added.) We 
     are not aware of any provision in H.R. 6 that renders void 
     this broad proscription against federal control over 
     education.
       It has also been suggested that the following sentence 
     could be added at some time to the language quoted above:
       ``This section shall not be construed to bar private, 
     religious or home schools from participation in programs or 
     services under this Act.'' This sentence states a truism 
     which only serves to underscore our concern that this 
     provision in the Armey Amendment separates private schools 
     into two groups, schools that do or do not participate in 
     federal education programs under H.R. 6, with the former 
     group being susceptible to broad government control. 
     Highlighting the distinction exacerbates rather than 
     alleviates the concern.
       To summarize, USCC opposes the above cited provision in the 
     Armey Amendment because it is potentially harmful to Catholic 
     schools, creates a dangerous precedent, and is unnecessary. 
     Unfortunately, it is our understanding that under the House 
     rules the Armey Amendment cannot be further amended at this 
     time. This leaves us no choice but to oppose the Armey 
     Amendment in toto, even though other parts of it are not 
     objectionable to USCC.
       Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Ford/
     Kildee and Armey Amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                  Rev. William F. Davis, OSFS,

                               Representative for Catholic Schools
                                           and Federal Assistance.
                                  ____

     To All House Members.
     From Coalition of National Homeschooling Organizations.
     Re Endorsement of the Ford-Kildee Amendment.
       There is no group that can speak for all home schoolers. 
     However, the following homeschool organizations on the 
     national level, each of whom provides a forum for the 
     exchange of ideas among homeschoolers, have endorsed the 
     Ford-Kildee Amendment to H.R. 6.
       The Council of the National Home School Association, P.O. 
     Box 290, Hartland, MI 48353-0290, 1-513-772-9580, Contact: 
     Sydney Mathis.
       Alliance for Parental Involvement in Education, P.O. Box 
     59, East Chatham, NY 12060-0059, 1-518-392-6900, Contact: 
     Seth Rockmuller.
       America, 14995 SE 122, Clakamas, OR 97015, 1-503-698-4746, 
     Contact: Halimah Moustafia.
       Clonlara School Home Based Education Program, 1289 Jewett, 
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104, 1-313-769-4515, Contact: Pat Montgomery.
       Drinking Gourd/Multicultural Home Education Magazine, P.O. 
     Box 2557, Redmond, WA 98073, 1-206-836-0336, Contact: Donna 
     Nichols-White.
       Holt Associates/Growing Without Schooling, 2269 
     Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02140, 1-617-864-3100, 
     Contact: Pat Farenga.
       Home Education League of Parents, 3208 Cahuenga Blvd. West, 
     Suite 31, Los Angeles, CA 90068, 1-213-874-8007, Contact: 
     Terri Endsley.
       Home Education Press/Home Education Magazine, P.O. Box 
     1083, Tonasket, WA 98855, 1-509-486-1351, Contact: Helen & 
     Mark Hegener.
       Jewish Home Educators' Network, 2 Webb Rd., Sharon, MA 
     02067, 1-617-784-9091, Contact: Pam Glasser Ernstoff.
       Latter Day Saints, 2770 South 1000 West, Perry, UT, 1-800-
     723-5355, Contact: Joyce Kinmont.
       Moore Foundation, Box 1, Camus, WA 98607, 1-206-835-5500, 
     Contact: Dorothy & Raymond Moore.
       National Association for the Legal Support of Alternative 
     Schools, P.O. Box 2823, Santa Fe, NM 87504-2823, Contact: 
     Lucia Vorys.
       National Challenged Home-Schoolers Associated Network, 5383 
     Alpine Rd. SE, Olala, WA 98359, 1-206-857-4257, Contact: 
     Thomas Bushnell.
       National Coalition of Alternative Community Schools, P.O. 
     Box 15036, Santa Fe, NM 87506, 1-505-474-4312, Contact: Ed 
     Nagel.
       Santa Fe Community School, P.O. Box 2241, Santa Fe, NM 
     87504, Contact: Ed Nagel.
       Unschoolers Network, 2 Smith St., Farmingdale, NJ 07727, 1-
     908-938-2473, Contact: Nancy Plent.
                                  ____

                                                  Council of Chief


                                        State School Officers,

                                Washington, DC, February 24, 1994.
       Dear Representative: I write on behalf of the chief state 
     school officers to urge your support for H.R. 6, the 
     Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), when it comes before 
     the House of Representatives on Thursday, February 24. The 
     bill restructures the major federal elementary and secondary 
     education programs. It makes important connections between 
     federal support for high poverty schools under Title I, 
     school improvement activities under Title II, and state and 
     local plans under Goals 2000: the Educate America Act. State 
     and local education agencies are provided new flexibility and 
     accountability under the Act to use resources from related 
     federal programs, in conjunction with state and local 
     programs, to achieve the National Education Goals.
       We commend particularly the bipartisan agreements reached 
     in Committee on the Title I targeting formula and the 
     provisions of Title II for professional development and 
     school improvement. Title II of H.R. 6 now authorizes 
     substantial new support for professional development and 
     expansion of learning technologies, while continuing 
     authority for federal funds to support a wide range of 
     innovations and reform strategies at the state and local 
     level. The bill makes significant and beneficial changes in 
     the provisions of a number of other elementary and secondary 
     programs as well, including the Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act, Even Start, and bilingual education.
       As the House takes action on H.R. 6, we urge agreement to 
     revise the overall provisions for standards and the 
     provisions for opportunity to learn standards added to 
     Section 1112, Section 1116, and Section 1117 at the Committee 
     level. Our Council strongly supports the provisions for state 
     standards in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, including 
     content, student performance and opportunity to learn 
     standards. Under that proposed Act, each state establishes 
     standards for all children. The state standards are used to 
     set expectations and to guide improvement of student and 
     school performance to satisfactory levels in a comprehensive 
     plan which covers state and federal programs and funding.
       In H.R. 6 we urge the House members to include only such 
     provisions for opportunity to learn standards as will provide 
     states with the flexibility and discretion to use them in 
     accordance with their Goals 2000 plans and strategies and to 
     focus the application of these standards on schools 
     identified under Title I of IASA as ``in need of 
     improvement.''
       It is our understanding that the leadership of the 
     Committee is developing a bipartisan agreement to revise the 
     provisions for opportunity to learn standards under Section 
     1112, 1116, and 1117. We have not reviewed the agreement but 
     urge support of it, if it is in accord with the principles 
     stated above.
       Once again, we urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 6. Thank 
     you for your consideration of our recommendations.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gordon M. Ambach.
                                  ____

                                             General Conference of


                                       Seventh-day Adventists,

                                                February 24, 1994.
       To Whom It May Concern: We endorse the amendment to H.R. 6 
     as proposed by Mr. Ford and Mr. Kildee with the understanding 
     that parochial schools in general, and not just homes 
     schools, would be exempted from application of the 
     certification requirements and all other aspects of the bill.
     Robert L. Dale,
       Vice President, North American Division.
     B.B. Beach,
       Director, General Conference Public Affairs & Religious 
     Liberty Department.
     Gilbert L. Plubell,
       Education Department, North American Division.
     G.M. Ross,
       Congressional Liaison.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc 
amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
  Among the provisions included in the amendment is one which will help 
homeless children to receive the high quality education they need to 
escape their impoverished circumstances. School is often the only 
stable element in the lives of these young people, and it is critical 
for us to support that stability.
  H.R. 6 reauthorizes programs which I originally sponsored in 
legislation passed in 1990. Our efforts have borne fruit--while reports 
in 1990 indicated that half of homeless children did not attend school 
regularly, current estimates indicate that the figure has dropped to a 
third or less. One Department of Education study showed the number as 
low as 18 percent. We in this House should be proud of that success.
  The legislation before us improves the program in a number of 
important ways. H.R. 6 clarifies enforcement and accountability, and 
promotes greater flexibility for States and local educational agencies 
in carrying out the goal of helping homeless youngsters realize their 
potential. In addition to Chairman Kildee, my colleague from Washington 
State, Mrs. Unsoeld, was instrumental in adding several excellent 
provisions at the committee level.
  This en bloc makes two more small but important changes. It helps 
State educational agencies to coordinate their plans and services with 
housing authorities. The bill also restores language requested by the 
Clinton administration, which assures that children can stay in the 
same school when they become homeless in the middle of the academic 
year.
  Educating our homeless children is a priority which transcends mere 
partisanship. I have been pleased with the collegiality which has 
surrounded our work on reauthorizing and improving homeless education 
programs. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment and, when it comes up for a vote, the bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of cooperation, because I 
have been trying very hard to have a bipartisan bill, I accept the 
opportunity to learn standards as we have finalized them, and want to 
make sure that we understand it makes clear that the implementation of 
the model opportunity to learn standards is voluntary and not mandated, 
narrows down the original list of 8 to 2. It allows the State to 
develop model opportunity to learn standards that the State deems 
appropriate to ensure that students served under this title receive a 
fair opportunity to achieve the knowledge and skills described in the 
content and performance standards adopted by the State. It only 
requires the State to develop opportunity to learn standards for 
children served under title I. It greatly limits the paperwork burden 
on schools and local education agencies, retains the provisions in the 
bill saying that the Secretary may not deny title I funds to a State 
based on the specific content of its opportunity to learn standards.
  It clarifies that model opportunity to learn standards cannot be 
enforced through litigation, cannot be used to mandate equalized 
spending in States or national school building standards.
  So I continue to believe that we cannot mandate anything that we do 
not pay for, and I think by adopting this compromise we are making sure 
that we do not have unfunded mandates.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an inquiry of the gentleman from 
Michigan. If I might ask the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] does 
this en bloc amendment contain the language relative to education about 
the dangers of smoking that is to be part of our drug abuse curriculum?
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that the gentleman's en bloc 
amendment actually weakens the language which is in the committee 
version of the bill which is coming to the floor in that it limits the 
education standards relative to this danger.
  Mr. KILDEE. It is the amendment that was agreed to in full committee 
and was inadvertently left out when it was printed. But I will be glad 
to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. DURBIN. The gentleman is correct in his statement to the 
committee on this point. I would like to make the following point: I 
will not object today to this en bloc amendment. What the gentleman 
from Michigan is doing is correctly reflecting committee action, but I 
strongly disagree with that action. The action taken by the Committee 
on Education and Labor relative to this issue relating to tobacco and 
the danger of smoking I think is a serious mistake.
  I will be offering an amendment next week to try to rectify this 
problem.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes 422, 
noes 1, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                               AYES--422

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--1

       
     Durbin
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Andrews (TX)
     Clay
     Gejdenson
     Green
     Hastings
     Hyde
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Laughlin
     Markey
     Murtha
     Rush
     Synar
     Washington
     Wilson

                              {time}  1557

  So the amendments en bloc, as modified, were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. 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. 
Meehan) having assumed the chair, Mr. Price of North Carolina, 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. 6) 
to extend for 6 years the authorizations of appropriations for the 
programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and 
for certain other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________