[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.
____________________